It’s baaaaaack. The proposed brand new amendment that makes a mockery out of the First One:
“The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.
I mean, this concept should be elementary. This should be American Citizenship 101. The flag stands for a nation with freedoms, including the freedom to burn the flag in protest.
I’ve always said that I wasn’t a fan of flag-burning as a means of protest, because it’s such a (pardon the expression) incendiary visual that whatever other point you wanted to make is going to be obscured by that action. So I don’t think it’s terribly effective in terms of convincing others. But the Congress…you know, the ones who shall make no law interfering with freedom of expression?…apparently didn’t get the memo.
And hey…all those articles of clothing with the flag adorning it? Notebooks? Forget it. What about decals or bumper stickers, with the image of the American flag getting spattered by mud and dirt. Pull that SUV over, fella…you with that foul bumpersticker and your girlfriend with the stars and stripes bikini top! You’re under arrest courtesy of Congress!
You can’t burn the flag of the United States by burning a representation of it any more than you can burn the Declaration of Independence by burning a copy of it.
You can, however, incinerate the concept of freedom of speech in this country by making a constitutional amendment banning a form of expression for the worst possible reason: It upsets people. No other reason. No one’s reputation stands to be defamed, no money lost. No child’s delicate mind is going to be threatened from the sight. No panics from “fire” falsely cried in a crowded theater (indeed, nowadays the major challenge is finding a theater that’s crowded.) There’s no cover here. It’s naked censorship, a throttling of free expression by the very governmental body that’s sworn to protect it.
Plus the GOP’s gotta love it because liberals must either embrace the notion–which is antithetical to anyone who has a grasp of free speech, to say nothing of making them indistinguishable from conservatives–or else they must spend countless man hours explaining why they value free expression above cheap political opportunism…and lose the vote of every schmuck who can’t wrap his tiny mind around defending to the death one’s right to express an opinion that that same person may find personally repellant. Puts them in a nice position for the next election.
And, of course, anyone opposed to a flag burning amendment is deemed “out of touch” with the citizenry. You know what? I’d rather be out of touch with the citizenry than out of touch with the concept of free expression.
PAD
UPDATE:
‘Ask the men and women who stood on top of the Trade Center,’ said Rep. Randy (Duke) Cunningham, R-Calif. ‘Ask them and they will tell you: pass this amendment.’
‘If the flag needs protection at all, it needs protection from members of Congress who value the symbol more than the freedoms that the flag represents.’ said Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., whose district includes the site of the former World Trade Center. –GH
• 
I am well aware of the depravity of all human beings that allows individuals to take pleasure in abusing people for the fun of it; it’s my expectation that officers are trained to prevent this kind of thing.
Well, again, we have Abu Ghraib to show that somewhere, something is lacking, whether it’s on an individual level, or in our command structure.
In the end though, it seems that there are enough people out there in this country that finds the “any means necessarily” method of getting information from these guys, including torturing them.
Comments from the Administration, and reports from a variety of sources, aren’t helping either.
“How about the Grant through McKinley, and the Harding, Coolidge, Johnson, Nixon, Ford and Bush Sr administrations? What did those Republicans accomplish?”
You know as much about the Presidency as you do about the Republican party. First Hint: Johnson was a Democrat. Second hint: You forgot someone. His name was Ronald something, I think….
“Hëll, at least Carter is a great MAN if a bad president.”
I agree. Unfortunately, he was not elected to be a “great man,” but a President. And as President, he was a royal fûçk-ûp.
“Oh, and name one thing Captain Shrub has done right.”
He got you to hate him. That’s one!
Joe V., I agree with almost everything you say. Everyone has their pain tolerance…for some, it’s so high that they weill die from the most extreme torture before the break. but there’s a difference between breaking, and giving up any information of value to your captors.
DC could certainly torture me to the point of getting me to say “make mine DC.” Or “Captain American throws like a girl.” Or anything else they wanted me to say (personlly, I’d probably just skip the whole torture/pain thing and be ready to tatoo the DC Bullet on my forhead to keep my fingernails).
But the point is, all I’ve done is *broken*. I’ve not given up the secret of House of M to DC.
Admittedly, there are some that torture will work on. Not everyone is so devoted to their convictions that they’re willing to die, or undergo extreme amounts of pain, for a cause. But I would say that people willing to go to war, or to die as a suicide bomber, as so devoted to their convictions that no amount of torture will do more than break them. They may indeed tell you that there are 5 lights, but will they ever give up any useful information? Probably not.
If history has told us anything about torture, it’s that it’s more about the jailors exacting revenge on the prisoners than it is about getting useful information out of them.
How about the Grant through McKinley, and the Harding, Coolidge, Jhonson, Nixon, Ford and Bush Sr administrations? What did those Republicans accomplish?
Grant:
Lincoln appointed him General-in-Chief in March 1864. Grant directed Sherman to drive through the South while he himself, with the Army of the Potomac, pinned down Gen. Robert E. Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia.
Finally, on April 9, 1865, at Appomattox Court House, Lee surrendered. Grant wrote out magnanimous terms of surrender that would prevent treason trials.
As President, Grant presided over the Government much as he had run the Army. Indeed he brought part of his Army staff to the White House.
Hayes:
Hayes insisted that his appointments must be made on merit, not political considerations. For his Cabinet he chose men of high caliber, but outraged many Republicans because one member was an ex-Confederate and another had bolted the party as a Liberal Republican in 1872.
Hayes pledged protection of the rights of Negroes in the South, but at the same time advocated the restoration of “wise, honest, and peaceful local self-government.” This meant the withdrawal of troops.
Garfield:
As President, Garfield strengthened Federal authority over the New York Customs House, stronghold of Senator Roscoe Conkling, who was leader of the Stalwart Republicans and dispenser of patronage in New York. When Garfield submitted to the Senate a list of appointments including many of Conkling’s friends, he named Conkling’s arch-rival William H. Robertson to run the Customs House. Conkling contested the nomination, tried to persuade the Senate to block it, and appealed to the Republican caucus to compel its withdrawal.
But Garfield would not submit: “This…will settle the question whether the President is registering clerk of the Senate or the Executive of the United States…. shall the principal port of entry … be under the control of the administration or under the local control of a factional senator.”
Conkling maneuvered to have the Senate confirm Garfield’s uncontested nominations and adjourn without acting on Robertson. Garfield countered by withdrawing all nominations except Robertson’s; the Senators would have to confirm him or sacrifice all the appointments of Conkling’s friends.
In a final desperate move, Conkling and his fellow-Senator from New York resigned, confident that their legislature would vindicate their stand and re-elect them. Instead, the legislature elected two other men; the Senate confirmed Robertson. Garfield’s victory was complete.
Arthur:
Arthur demonstrated as President that he was above factions within the Republican Party, if indeed not above the party itself. Perhaps in part his reason was the well-kept secret he had known since a year after he succeeded to the Presidency, that he was suffering from a fatal kidney disease. He kept himself in the running for the Presidential nomination in 1884 in order not to appear that he feared defeat, but was not renominated, and died in 1886. Publisher Alexander K. McClure recalled, “No man ever entered the Presidency so profoundly and widely distrusted, and no one ever retired … more generally respected.”
Cleveland:
Cleveland vigorously pursued a policy barring special favors to any economic group. Vetoing a bill to appropriate $10,000 to distribute seed grain among drought-stricken farmers in Texas, he wrote: “Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character. . . . ”
Elected again in 1892, Cleveland faced an acute depression. He dealt directly with the Treasury crisis rather than with business failures, farm mortgage foreclosures, and unemployment. He obtained repeal of the mildly inflationary Sherman Silver Purchase Act and, with the aid of Wall Street, maintained the Treasury’s gold reserve.
When railroad strikers in Chicago violated an injunction, Cleveland sent Federal troops to enforce it. “If it takes the entire army and navy of the United States to deliver a post card in Chicago,” he thundered, “that card will be delivered.”
Cleveland’s blunt treatment of the railroad strikers stirred the pride of many Americans. So did the vigorous way in which he forced Great Britain to accept arbitration of a disputed boundary in Venezuela
Harrison:
Harrison was proud of the vigorous foreign policy which he helped shape. The first Pan American Congress met in Washington in 1889, establishing an information center which later became the Pan American Union. At the end of his administration Harrison submitted to the Senate a treaty to annex Hawaii; to his disappointment, President Cleveland later withdrew it.
Substantial appropriation bills were signed by Harrison for internal improvements, naval expansion, and subsidies for steamship lines. For the first time except in war, Congress appropriated a billion dollars. When critics attacked “the billion-dollar Congress,” Speaker Thomas B. Reed replied, “This is a billion-dollar country.” President Harrison also signed the Sherman Anti-Trust Act “to protect trade and commerce against unlawful restraints and monopolies,” the first Federal act attempting to regulate trusts.
McKinley:
Not prosperity, but foreign policy, dominated McKinley’s Administration. Reporting the stalemate between Spanish forces and revolutionaries in Cuba, newspapers screamed that a quarter of the population was dead and the rest suffering acutely. Public indignation brought pressure upon the President for war. Unable to restrain Congress or the American people, McKinley delivered his message of neutral intervention in April 1898. Congress thereupon voted three resolutions tantamount to a declaration of war for the liberation and independence of Cuba.
In the 100-day war, the United States destroyed the Spanish fleet outside Santiago harbor in Cuba, seized Manila in the Philippines, and occupied Puerto Rico.
He was more a victim of circumstance than anything.
Harding:
A Republican yes man, Republicans in Congress easily got the President’s signature on their bills. But they eliminated wartime controls and slashed taxes, established a Federal budget system, restored the high protective tariff, and imposed tight limitations upon immigration.
Coolidge:
I’ll give you Coolidge, he did nothing and did it alot!
Nixon:
Some of his most acclaimed achievements came in his quest for world stability. During visits in 1972 to Beijing and Moscow, he reduced tensions with China and the U.S.S.R. His summit meetings with Russian leader Leonid I. Brezhnev produced a treaty to limit strategic nuclear weapons. In January 1973, he announced an accord with North Viet Nam to end American involvement in Indochina. In 1974, his Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, negotiated disengagement agreements between Israel and its opponents, Egypt and Syria.
In his 1972 bid for office, Nixon defeated Democratic candidate George McGovern by one of the widest margins on record.
Within a few months, his administration was embattled over the so-called “Watergate” scandal, stemming from a break-in at the offices of the Democratic National Committee during the 1972 campaign. The break-in was traced to officials of the Committee to Re-elect the President. A number of administration officials resigned; some were later convicted of offenses connected with efforts to cover up the affair. Nixon denied any personal involvement, but the courts forced him to yield tape recordings which indicated that he had, in fact, tried to divert the investigation.
As a result of unrelated scandals in Maryland, Vice President Spiro T. Agnew resigned in 1973. Nixon nominated, and Congress approved, House Minority Leader Gerald R. Ford as Vice President.
Faced with what seemed almost certain impeachment, Nixon announced on August 8, 1974, that he would resign the next day to begin “that process of healing which is so desperately needed in America
Bush Sr.:
Bush faced a dramatically changing world, as the Cold War ended after 40 bitter years, the Communist empire broke up, and the Berlin Wall fell. The Soviet Union ceased to exist; and reformist President Mikhail Gorbachev, whom Bush had supported, resigned. While Bush hailed the march of democracy, he insisted on restraint in U. S. policy toward the group of new nations.
In other areas of foreign policy, President Bush sent American troops into Panama to overthrow the corrupt regime of General Manuel Noriega, who was threatening the security of the canal and the Americans living there. Noriega was brought to the United States for trial as a drug trafficker.
Bush’s greatest test came when Iraqi President Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, then threatened to move into Saudi Arabia. Vowing to free Kuwait, Bush rallied the United Nations, the U. S. people, and Congress and sent 425,000 American troops. They were joined by 118,000 troops from allied nations. After weeks of air and missile bombardment, the 100-hour land battle dubbed Desert Storm routed Iraq’s million-man army.
Anymore questions?
I had thought the relevance was apparant…the point being, how far is too far?
The only relevance is how far into the improbable will you take hyperbole and your ridiculous slippery slope argument.
American soldiers are not grabbing up the puppies and kittens and babies of these terrorists and harming them to torture these captives and they never will.
“American soldiers are not grabbing up the puppies and kittens and babies of these terrorists and harming them to torture these captives and they never will.”
And there was a time when Americans thought their government would never abuse prisoners, period.
Nazi prison camps didn’t start gassing prisoners right away either. The atrocities there escalated over time. All because the general populace turned a blind eye, or even actively supported, the abuse visited by the Nazi party on those unable to resist them.
And, no, you’ll get no apology from me for comparing the acts of this administration to those horros conducted by Nazi Germany. What good is learning history if we don’t take steps to prevent the atrocities of the past from being repeated today?
Let’s see, Ham’s questions: I actually did explain why my leadership and military skills are most likely more effective than yours
I must have missed that.
Nazi prison camps didn’t start gassing prisoners right away either. The atrocities there escalated over time. All because the general populace turned a blind eye, or even actively supported, the abuse visited by the Nazi party on those unable to resist them.
See, no one here is turning a blind eye. Your slippery-slope argument is ridiculous. You have yet to give an example of an acceptable treatment of these prisoners short of saying that you don’t expect them to be put in a four star hotel, yet you are ready to keep repeating the most ludicrous assertions that we are going to end up torturing babies and kittens.
Join the real world.
Seems that I forgot
Ford:
Ford was confronted with almost insuperable tasks. There were the challenges of mastering inflation, reviving a depressed economy, solving chronic energy shortages, and trying to ensure world peace.
The President acted to curb the trend toward Government intervention and spending as a means of solving the problems of American society and the economy. In the long run, he believed, this shift would bring a better life for all Americans.
Ford’s reputation for integrity and openness had made him popular during his 25 years in Congress. From 1965 to 1973, he was House Minority Leader. Born in Omaha, Nebraska, in 1913, he grew up in Grand Rapids, Michigan. He starred on the University of Michigan football team, then went to Yale, where he served as assistant coach while earning his law degree. During World War II he attained the rank of lieutenant commander in the Navy. After the war he returned to Grand Rapids, where he began the practice of law, and entered Republican politics.
Ford established his policies during his first year in office, despite opposition from a heavily Democratic Congress. His first goal was to curb inflation. Then, when recession became the Nation’s most serious domestic problem, he shifted to measures aimed at stimulating the economy. But, still fearing inflation, Ford vetoed a number of non-military appropriations bills that would have further increased the already heavy budgetary deficit. During his first 14 months as President he vetoed 39 measures. His vetoes were usually sustained.
Ford continued as he had in his Congressional days to view himself as “a moderate in domestic affairs, a conservative in fiscal affairs, and a dyed-in-the-wool internationalist in foreign affairs.” A major goal was to help business operate more freely by reducing taxes upon it and easing the controls exercised by regulatory agencies. “We…declared our independence 200 years ago, and we are not about to lose it now to paper shufflers and computers,” he said.
In foreign affairs Ford acted vigorously to maintain U. S. power and prestige after the collapse of Cambodia and South Viet Nam. Preventing a new war in the Middle East remained a major objective; by providing aid to both Israel and Egypt, the Ford Administration helped persuade the two countries to accept an interim truce agreement. Detente with the Soviet Union continued. President Ford and Soviet leader Leonid I. Brezhnev set new limitations upon nuclear weapons.
President Ford won the Republican nomination for the Presidency in 1976, but lost the election to his Democratic opponent, former Governor Jimmy Carter of Georgia.
On Inauguration Day, President Carter began his speech: “For myself and for our Nation, I want to thank my predecessor for all he has done to heal our land.” A grateful people concurred.
PLEASE don’t try to list Reagan’s accomplishments here!
We simply don’t have enough space available.
The space here is unlimited?
So were Reagan’s accomplishments.
See, no one here is turning a blind eye.
I’ll reiterate: some Americans *want* these guys in Gitmo tortured.
No blind eye? I guess, well, you’d have to be rather blind to think that. 🙂
Ham, learn to read:
“You have yet to give an example of an acceptable treatment of these prisoners short of saying that you don’t expect them to be put in a four star hotel”
See my above response where I state “But to be totally clear, I think the same treatment we afford our criminal suspects and convictees is what we should apply to the detainees.”
I’m sure if we looked hard enough, we could find sentiments such as yours expressed in letters and notes from 1930s Germany. In German, of course.
“See, no one here is turning a blind eye…” Which means it’s even worse than ignorance…it’s complicity. You’re saying everyone knows what’s going on, and is either speaking out against it, or going along with it.
“Join the real world?” If the real world is one where supposedly “good” people agree to the torture and abuse of helpless prisoners, I’ll be glad to take no part of that.
Robbnn, a lawyer’s responsibility to their client ends at “fair representation.” If a lawyer decides to act in a personal capacity for their client, that’s a personal decision. Lawyers that pass on criminal information for their client stop being counsel, and start being an accomplice. Mob lawyers take the actions they do because they get are corrupt, and get paid well for their actions. If they get caught, they’re going to jail, same as their bosses.
This is a risk our system bears in order to make an attempt to be the fairest justice system it can be.
“Anymore questions?”
Well, a request: Rather than having Democrats proceed to list GOP president foul-ups, I’m sure you’re now prepared to provide a similar detailed list of all the positive accomplishments of the many Democratic presidents we had in the 20th Century. Trot them out, please. Feel free to start with Clinton and work backwards.
PAD
I disagree on several levels.
First, the treatment criminal prisoners get is ridiculous. TV? Internet? They live better than the poor. A complete overhaul of our criminal detainment policy is needed, returning to a minimalist accomodation, labor for restitution and skills development to name a few.
You don’t take risks like that with potential terrorist leaders or cutouts. A mob boss directing operations for a jail cell is nothing compared to a terrorist cell leader. The former is a profiteer, the latter a potential mass murderer. We are at war and we must adapt to new conditions. We did that in the Revolution using hit and run tactics instead of just standing in a line to blow each other away like standard warfare (we did some of that, but it didn’t work too well).
Several of you think we’re talking about eye for an eye abuse, but we’re not (I’m not). At the same time I’m not for treating them like buddies, either. These guys actively championed our destruction. They will gladly kill you and yours either themselves or at a remove. I’m not interested in vengence, but I am in security and preventing it from happening.
Your allusion to the nazi party is beneath you. You’ve shown good reason in every other argument on this board and I can’t imagine why you’re going there.
These guys actively championed our destruction
Which “guys” are we referring to here?
Actual Al-Qaeda members?
Those unfortunates of the Taliban who just happened to be with the party in power at the time but couldn’t give a dámņ what anybody was doing outside their own rural village?
Those unforunates of the Baath party who just happened to be with the party in power at the time but couldn’t give a dámņ what anybody was doing outside their own rural village?
Those in Iraq who are fighting Americans, not because they’re a terrorist, but because they truly see us as invaders?
And, contrary to the act put on by both the Bush Administration and the media, I’m sure there are more than a few of the last category – the same type as many ordinary Americans who would do the same if their home was invaded.
Instead, we paint them all with the same brush – terrorist, insurgent. Whatever label we can give them to make them sound like the bad guys, no matter their reason for not groveling at our feet.
Robbnn, I’d agree that we treat our prisoners too well. They’re certainly, aside from not being free, in better conditions than many free poor in our country. I’m personally in favor or instituting labor requirements for convicts. If they are going to commit crimes which society deems worthy of forfeiting their liberty, they should at least mitigate the costs of their incarceration some.
But, flawed prison system and all, I think a prisoner is a prisoner. There’s precedent for allowing the legal screening of a prisoner’s mail and outside communication if the government has a substanial reason to do do. There’s absolutely no excuse you can provide for detaining terrorist subjects without some legal representation for them. It is a fundamental violation or our system of justice. Sure, given their freedom and the opportunity, they’d gladly kill us. Be that as it may, we either must apply justice to them, or we’re just a bunch of thugs holding people because we can, not because we have any moral authority to.
I raise the Nazi analogy as a warning. What our administration is allowing currently are a series of small evils to be carried out in the guise of safety and justice. The problem with allowing evil into your actions is that it always, always, leads to more evil. Today it’s actions seen as abuse and discomfort. When those actions start to fail, it will be easier to take actions that go farther, impose more pain, and so on. Is the US government in the same league as Nazi Germany? Not at all. But 1930 Nazi Germany wasn’t in the same leage that 1940 Nazi Germany was, either. What good are thie lessons of history if we all shy away from them the moment someone brings them up?
I make the comparison not to insult, but to warn. If it offends you, it should. That people can even begin to make the comparisson should be the proverbial cold shower that snaps us out of our anger and fear induced state of veangeance and paranoia. The America I love is better than these acts of abuse. I want to see us return to a government that is respected for it’s restraint and fair and equal justice, not one that is laughed at as a bunch of hypocratic bullies.
to Ham:
Grant: Brilliant general, bad president. His administration was mired in scandles, none of which, however, he was implicated in. He did, however, fali to take any sort of stance against the “Whiskey Conspiritors,” and gave away Government posts like party favors. He was perhaps surpassed in this line only by Andrew Jackson. He did however, pass into law laws restircting the Klan, and preside over the 15th amendment being passed. Still, a weak, scandle plauged president.
Hayes: A creature of party politics, he was nicknamed “old Granny,” for being surpassingly anal. He lost the popular vote, and, as several Electoral College votes were contested, possible the nastiest bit of electoral politics right up to thte year 2000 took place. The Republican party agreed to end reconstruction if he was elected pres. by the House. This sent the Southern African-Americans into a land where the Klan, and segregation ruled. No black people would be allowed to vote, and “Seperate but Equal” for what it was worth, wouldn’t happen until Plessy in 1896.
Garfield: He never wanted to be president, but was chosen when delagates at the 1881 convention switched their votes to him. He did support civil service reform. Ultimately, he did not have enough time to effect real change. IN what can only be seen as a great stride forward, however, he WAS the first Ambidexterous president. (I can’t belive I remember that.)
Arthur: I’ll give you him. He was an honest man, and did effect some change, despite being placed in power by party politics and Guiteau. He was a supporter of the spoils system, and did nothing to treat either of the two great evils of this period: Racial oppression, and the screwing over of the working man.
Cleveland: Ran the most vicious negative campaign up to that time. (hard to believe when you think about Jackson and what his opponents did.) He married the girl he was guardian of, and there was one hëll of an age difference. He gave special favors the way bank clerks hand out lollipops. He did attempt to regulate the railroads. He attacked strikers with federal troops, and generally didn’t do much to help the workers.
Harrison: Signed The Sherman Anti-trust bill, which was, until Teddy Roosevelt, used solely against Unions. He lost the tresury surplus, and was basically abandoned by his own party. He also wanted to annex Hawaii, very much against the wishes of the Hawaiians.
McKinley: Decided to go and attack Spain, a decision he based, not on hard facts, but on prayer. He said that God had told him to attack Spain and spread the US across the world. And to say that THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES is “A victim of circumstance” is a fallacious statement. He made no attempt to stop the war at all, and supported Manifest Destiny to the teeth.
Harding: Corrupt to the gills. In defience of Prohibition, he had a constant supply of bootleg on hand, and his only real claim to fame was his putting some honest people in power.
Coolidege: You’ll give him? I’ll take him. He didn’t do much, but he did believe it would work. Instead of giving out money like FDR would, he decided to Raise tariffs (Smoot-Hawley) and trust the market to correct itself. This was wrong, and he did begin to take steps to correct it. One of the few presidents, along with Carter, who really could be called a victim of circumstance.
Johnson: My bad. I wasn’t thinking, sorry. I must have gotten wires crossed with Andrew Johnson, who I actually like. Again, my apologies.
Nixon: I agree with your statements about his foreign policy acheivments, but that does nothing to mitigate his corruption. I am not even going to list his illegal, Immoral, stupid, evil deeds. (Including apparently, calling Indira Ghandi an “old witch”) Instead, I leave you with a quote:
“It is Nixon himself who represents that dark, venal and incurably violent side of the American character that almost every country in the world has learned to fear and despise. Our Barbie-doll president, with his Barbie-doll wife and his boxful of Barbie-doll children is also America’s answer to the monstrous Mr. Hyde. He speaks for the Werewolf in us.” Hunter Thompson
Ford: I’ll give you Ford. He was just screwed by having been in the same room as Nixon, let alone his VP, let alone pardoning him.
Bush Sr.: Wow. He managed to beat Iraq, and leave Saddam in power. One of the few things I admire about the Current bush is that he brought one of the worst modern dictators down. Kudos. He maybe did it for the wrong reasons, but he did it. As for Bush Sr., he broke hus “No new taxes rule” and sent the country into an economic slide.
Regan: Him I greatly admire. I will go into this more later, but for now, I must rush.
Cheers,
James Carter
Feel free to start with Clinton and work backwards.
Okay, though I don’t think Clinton is far enough in the past for there to be no bias.
Clinton:
In the world, he successfully dispatched peace keeping forces to war-torn Bosnia and bombed Iraq when Saddam Hussein stopped United Nations inspections for evidence of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. He became a global proponent for an expanded NATO, more open international trade, and a worldwide campaign against drug trafficking.
Carter:
Carter worked hard to combat the continuing economic woes of inflation and unemployment. By the end of his administration, he could claim an increase of nearly eight million jobs and a decrease in the budget deficit, measured in percentage of the gross national product. Unfortunately, inflation and interest rates were at near record highs, and efforts to reduce them caused a short recession.
Carter could point to a number of achievements in domestic affairs. He dealt with the energy shortage by establishing a national energy policy and by decontrolling domestic petroleum prices to stimulate production. He prompted Government efficiency through civil service reform and proceeded with deregulation of the trucking and airline industries. He sought to improve the environment. His expansion of the national park system included protection of 103 million acres of Alaskan lands. To increase human and social services, he created the Department of Education, bolstered the Social Security system, and appointed record numbers of women, blacks, and Hispanics to Government jobs.
In foreign affairs, Carter set his own style. His championing of human rights was coldly received by the Soviet Union and some other nations. In the Middle East, through the Camp David agreement of 1978, he helped bring amity between Egypt and Israel. He succeeded in obtaining ratification of the Panama Canal treaties. Building upon the work of predecessors, he established full diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic of China and completed negotiation of the SALT II nuclear limitation treaty with the Soviet Union.
Johnson (not a Republican):
First he obtained enactment of the measures President Kennedy had been urging at the time of his death–a new civil rights bill and a tax cut. Next he urged the Nation “to build a great society, a place where the meaning of man’s life matches the marvels of man’s labor.” In 1964, Johnson won the Presidency with 61 percent of the vote and had the widest popular margin in American history–more than 15,000,000 votes.
The Great Society program became Johnson’s agenda for Congress in January 1965: aid to education, attack on disease, Medicare, urban renewal, beautification, conservation, development of depressed regions, a wide-scale fight against poverty, control and prevention of crime and delinquency, removal of obstacles to the right to vote. Congress, at times augmenting or amending, rapidly enacted Johnson’s recommendations. Millions of elderly people found succor through the 1965 Medicare amendment to the Social Security Act.
Under Johnson, the country made spectacular explorations of space in a program he had championed since its start. When three astronauts successfully orbited the moon in December 1968, Johnson congratulated them: “You’ve taken … all of us, all over the world, into a new era. . . . ”
Kennedy:
His Inaugural Address offered the memorable injunction: “Ask not what your country can do for you–ask what you can do for your country.” As President, he set out to redeem his campaign pledge to get America moving again. His economic programs launched the country on its longest sustained expansion since World War II; before his death, he laid plans for a massive assault on persisting pockets of privation and poverty.
Responding to ever more urgent demands, he took vigorous action in the cause of equal rights, calling for new civil rights legislation. His vision of America extended to the quality of the national culture and the central role of the arts in a vital society.
He wished America to resume its old mission as the first nation dedicated to the revolution of human rights. With the Alliance for Progress and the Peace Corps, he brought American idealism to the aid of developing nations.
Shortly after his inauguration, Kennedy permitted a band of Cuban exiles, already armed and trained, to invade their homeland. The attempt to overthrow the regime of Fidel Castro was a failure. Soon thereafter, the Soviet Union renewed its campaign against West Berlin. Kennedy replied by reinforcing the Berlin garrison and increasing the Nation’s military strength, including new efforts in outer space. Confronted by this reaction, Moscow, after the erection of the Berlin Wall, relaxed its pressure in central Europe.
Instead, the Russians now sought to install nuclear missiles in Cuba. When this was discovered by air reconnaissance in October 1962, Kennedy imposed a quarantine on all offensive weapons bound for Cuba. While the world trembled on the brink of nuclear war, the Russians backed down and agreed to take the missiles away. The American response to the Cuban crisis evidently persuaded Moscow of the futility of nuclear blackmail.
Kennedy now contended that both sides had a vital interest in stopping the spread of nuclear weapons and slowing the arms race–a contention which led to the test ban treaty of 1963. The months after the Cuban crisis showed significant progress toward his goal of “a world of law and free choice, banishing the world of war and coercion.” His administration thus saw the beginning of new hope for both the equal rights of Americans and the peace of the world.
Truman:
As President, Truman made some of the most crucial decisions in history. Soon after V-E Day, the war against Japan had reached its final stage. An urgent plea to Japan to surrender was rejected. Truman, after consultations with his advisers, ordered atomic bombs dropped on cities devoted to war work. Two were Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Japanese surrender quickly followed.
In June 1945 Truman witnessed the signing of the charter of the United Nations, hopefully established to preserve peace.
Thus far, he had followed his predecessor’s policies, but he soon developed his own. He presented to Congress a 21-point program, proposing the expansion of Social Security, a full-employment program, a permanent Fair Employment Practices Act, and public housing and slum clearance. The program, Truman wrote, “symbolizes for me my assumption of the office of President in my own right.” It became known as the Fair Deal.
Dangers and crises marked the foreign scene as Truman campaigned successfully in 1948. In foreign affairs he was already providing his most effective leadership.
In 1947 as the Soviet Union pressured Turkey and, through guerrillas, threatened to take over Greece, he asked Congress to aid the two countries, enunciating the program that bears his name–the Truman Doctrine. The Marshall Plan, named for his Secretary of State, stimulated spectacular economic recovery in war-torn western Europe.
When the Russians blockaded the western sectors of Berlin in 1948, Truman created a massive airlift to supply Berliners until the Russians backed down. Meanwhile, he was negotiating a military alliance to protect Western nations, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, established in 1949.
In June 1950, when the Communist government of North Korea attacked South Korea, Truman conferred promptly with his military advisers. There was, he wrote, “complete, almost unspoken acceptance on the part of everyone that whatever had to be done to meet this aggression had to be done. There was no suggestion from anyone that either the United Nations or the United States could back away from it.”
FDR:
Roosevelt had pledged the United States to the “good neighbor” policy, transforming the Monroe Doctrine from a unilateral American manifesto into arrangements for mutual action against aggressors. He also sought through neutrality legislation to keep the United States out of the war in Europe, yet at the same time to strengthen nations threatened or attacked. When France fell and England came under siege in 1940, he began to send Great Britain all possible aid short of actual military involvement.
When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, Roosevelt directed organization of the Nation’s manpower and resources for global war.
Feeling that the future peace of the world would depend upon relations between the United States and Russia, he devoted much thought to the planning of a United Nations, in which, he hoped, international difficulties could be settled.
Wilson:
Wilson maneuvered through Congress three major pieces of legislation. The first was a lower tariff, the Underwood Act; attached to the measure was a graduated Federal income tax. The passage of the Federal Reserve Act provided the Nation with the more elastic money supply it badly needed. In 1914 antitrust legislation established a Federal Trade Commission to prohibit unfair business practices.
Another burst of legislation followed in 1916. One new law prohibited child labor; another limited railroad workers to an eight-hour day. By virtue of this legislation and the slogan “he kept us out of war,” Wilson narrowly won re-election.
But after the election Wilson concluded that America could not remain neutral in the World War. On April 2,1917, he asked Congress for a declaration of war on Germany.
Massive American effort slowly tipped the balance in favor of the Allies. Wilson went before Congress in January 1918, to enunciate American war aims–the Fourteen Points, the last of which would establish “A general association of nations…affording mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial integrity to great and small states alike.”
After the Germans signed the Armistice in November 1918, Wilson went to Paris to try to build an enduring peace. He later presented to the Senate the Versailles Treaty, containing the Covenant of the League of Nations, and asked, “Dare we reject it and break the heart of the world?”
I would also like to mention that Cleveland was also a Democrat, though I did not point that out earlier.
See my above response where I state “But to be totally clear, I think the same treatment we afford our criminal suspects and convictees is what we should apply to the detainees.”
You are correct, my bad, I had forgotten and then re-read your post after I said that and I see that I was wrong.
I’m sure if we looked hard enough, we could find sentiments such as yours expressed in letters and notes from 1930s Germany. In German, of course.
I’m as far from Nazism as one can be. Just because you and I disagree on what is torture and abuse, doesn’t mean that I am the extreme opposite of you. Just as in the real world, the slippery slope extreme that you want to paint the military with doesn’t stand.
Which means it’s even worse than ignorance…it’s complicity. You’re saying everyone knows what’s going on, and is either speaking out against it, or going along with it.
No, that is not what I am saying. I am saying that people are aware of what is going on and keeping a watchful eye on it. The media is more than making a spectacle of these events and one would have to be totally ignorant of the news not to know the allegations being made against our troops.
For a Dem(which I am assuming from your responses), you sure have a black and white view. Everything is either one extreme or the other according to you, with no middle ground.
Ham, I didn’t mean to suggest you were a Nazi. Far from it….just as most German citizens in the 1930s and 40s were not members of the Nazi party. The analogy I’m making is that the citizenry in general did very little to oppose the Nazi party while it was on the rise. And while very few in the beginning could have predicted what that party would become, at some point there had to be some signs…and those signs were ignored or disregared beyond the point where the course of the country could be averted.
I’m not laying any of this on the military…I *am* laying it on the current administration, which the military takes it’s orders from.
I’m not usually one to take the “if you’re not opposing something, you’re for it” tack. And I don’t think I am here, either. You say that the abuse situation is being kept a close eye on. By who? Our government won’t even investigate it’s own (FBI) findings of abuse, and the media has no access to the detainment camps. So who, exactly, is monitoring the situation? The reason why I can make so-called slippery slope arguments is because there’s no transperancy at all in the process. All we have is an increasing number of reports from multiple sources corroborating cases of, if not wide-spread, then at least systematic, abuse, and all our government says to us is “trust us, there is no abuse.” The same government that says that there were WMDs in Iraq (lies, or wrong), that Iraq is connected to the events of 9/11 (total lie), and that there are enough troops on the ground in Iraq the complete the mission of restoring Iraq to sovereign rule (another lie…the generals on the ground say they don’t have enough troops to secure the borders…and without that, we’re effectively fighting the entire Middle East region). So with our elected and appointed officials spewing lies and inaccuracies at nearly every turn, it’s no wonder that there’s a movement demanding accountability, review, and truth.
If I’m developing a black and white view, or at least expressing one, it might be because the opposition has gotten so good at casting things in only absolutes. When reason and moderation no longer holds sway, the only way to combat the GOP mentality is to demonstrate where absolutist thinking takes you.
At this point, whether you consider them POW’s or “enemy combatants”, I’d suggest there are a couple of points to compromise on:
1. If we’re going to call it a war on something, then we need to handle those we capture in the conducting of that war with the most appropriate laws available. Much like the internet, the laws and conventions on the books weren’t written with terrorism in mind. I’d concede the torture issue to those who argue that the Geneva Conventions apply here, as they’re the only legal thing that to me seems remotely applicable in an international military action. I’d love some input on the legalities of this, as from my understanding, the law we’re currently using to hold detainees at Gitmo is a material witness law designed to hold witnesses deemed a flight risk that has been, um, stretched to a large degree to apply here.
2. However, with regards to the legal counsel issue, we’re at war, and if you want to apply the Geneva Conventions to stop the torture and dictate the minimum standards of treatment, then that means the detainees don’t have to be released until the end of the war and the risk they will reenter combat is negligible.
You now have permission to commence the pile-on…
PILE ON JASON!
No, wait, those are both good points. And something I’ve not seen mentioned before. The detainees are getting all the worst elements…if it’s a war, as the term has been used, then why don’t the ideals at least of the GC apply? Isn’t the US supposed to represent a higher ideal? Then why is it demonstrating the concept that the only thing keeping our society from degenerating into anarchy is the rule of law? By which I mean, many people will tell you that they’d happily steal/cheat/murder (for some, at least) if they were guaranteed to not get caught. There’s no one to stop us from abusing detainees…we can’t get caught…so we abuse them.
On the other hand, if the GC don’t apply, then how are we detaining them without charges? And without legal counsel? Again, even of the Constitution doesn’t apply in a strict legal sense, shouldn’t we be striving to apply the ideals of the Constitution? When our citizens run afoul of other nations’ laws, and we consider those laws to conflict with our ideals of justice and rights, don’t we make a big stink about the treatment our people receive?
The atrocities there escalated over time. All because the general populace turned a blind eye, or even actively supported
Actually, by the time atrocities escalated, the German people not oply didn’t know what was going on, they couldn’t question it, because by this time yhe use of secret police and neighbors informing on others, you didn’t ask questions unless you wanted to disappear.
Ham! You rule! Excellent work for both parties’ presidents.
Ham:
I love it. I have no idea what your political affilitation is, but you did beautiful synopses of both sides good points. Nice dang job.
PS Yes, I now realize Johnson was NOT a Republican.
Since everyone here seems to have instant sources of information, I’m wondering if anyone has seen an actual total on the number of people detained in total by the US and coalition forces so far in this war? I’d like to know how the number of incidents of abuse (sure, we’ll say confirmed and alleged) of detainees compares to the total number of detainees, and how totals and rates of abuse among the detainees and in the regular criminal justice system in the US compare to other countries. I know any abuse is bad abuse (well, unless you pay someone you meet online an hourly rate, but that’s a different topic), so please don’t start talking about the slippery slope here, just gimme some numbers. And hëll, to even be more of a compromising moderate Republican, does Amnesty International or the Red Cross carry these statistics, in context of international totals?
P.S. Republicans should not work in social services; your coworkers ask all these rational questions, demand these things called “facts,” enforce logical thinking…
PS Yes, I now realize Johnson was NOT a Republican.
Sorry about that last dig, I typed that before I ever saw your post.
But, thanks Hendrix and James Carter, I try!
More good questions, Jason, but again they highlight part of the problem.
I recently saw a figure for the number of detainees still at Gitmo, putting it at 530. I know some have been released, but I’ve no idea on the numbers held in the Middle East or elsewhere.
So that would probably put the number (total) around 1000? The photos showing abuse would suggest that there are more than 10 cases of abuse. If we only have proof of the tip of the iceberg, and there’s 10 times that many, that’s 1% of US detainees are abused. That may not sound like a lot, but that’s a statistically significant number. Consider that Bush beat Kerry by about 1% of all eligible US voters, and it was considered a landslide victory by some.
Actually, wouldn’t the ten or so confirmed cases of abuse in the AG photos already equate 1% of 1000 total detainees, before multiplying by anything? So that’s a statistically significant point for you, Bobb, there that, indicative of the whole or not, there have been abuses that violate the GC that must be reconciled.
However, I don’t know if I’d use a muliplier to just blanketly represent an iceberg like you’re talking about Bobb, because while I’ll accept there are additional abuses being highlighted by Amnesty Int’l and the Red Cross (though maybe not agreeing with their borderline sensationalist reporting of them in this case, we’ve always depended on them in the past to go after others, so I admit it’s silly to suddenly distrust them for doing the same here), but do we really have a way to project what the actual total is without at least acknowledging the possibility that maybe these are truly isolated incidents that are not indicative of a widespread or systematic effort?
gah, shows you why I didn’t go into math more…absolutely correct, we already have 1% mostly confirmed cases of abuse, without an iceberg multiplier.
What we don’t have is accountability. We have a series of military trials where the defendant’s claim they were acting on orders, but no paper trail of those orders, or even of a list of superiors stepping forward. We have the offical chain of command saying these were isolated acts of abuse, combined with an increasing amount of claims of abuse, coming from different sources.
What we need is a transparant investigation and accounting of what has been happening. And we’re not getting that. Bush is out stumping for more support for the war…if he wants support, one way to get it is to reassure an increasingly restless public that is starting to think that we may not exactly be the good guys anymore.
Posted by X-Ray at June 29, 2005 12:41 AM
PLEASE don’t try to list Reagan’s accomplishments here! We simply don’t have enough space available.
True. But here’s a link to a partial list of 68 of them.
http://www.bartcop.com/reagan-record.htm
“The space here is unlimited?
So were Reagan’s accomplishments”
I can’t believe I am about to say this, but I agree. Kinda, I don’t think he was God or limitless, but he was a great president, and a great man. so:
Reagan: The hostages were freed on his Inauguration day, which is generally seen as a slap at Carter. Billed as the “Great Communicator.” his acting skills and humanity helped him connect with the people in a way that his three predecessors could never muster. He cut taxes across the board, and slashed Government spending. He is largely credited with having a large part in ending the cold war. Many attribute this to his out sepending the USSR, both on the Military and civilian levels. He renewed the war on drugs, but was widely castigated for not responding to the start of AIDS soon enough. Although many
criticized “reaganomics” it is the opinion of many that they worked, enventually, and they ddin’t really take effect until after he had left office. His confrontation with the Soviet Union was a break from Detante. He COnfronted the Soviets on the Military, economic, and what he called the “Clandestine” level, or supporting anti-communist groups around the world. this led directly to what was know as “the Iran-Contra Scandal” In which he was accused of selling wepons to Iran, and then giving the Money to the South american, anti-communist Contras. He also exchanged weapons for iranian held hostages in the “Arms for Hostages” deal. He was honored as a Knight Commander of the Bath, one of only two presidents to be so honored. (along with G. H. W. Bush.)
In my mind, one of the greatest presidents we have ever had. Feel free to pile on.
Michael Brunner, that list is highly suspect when one of them is that Reagan was the first president that the writer of the list called a “BRAIN DEAD AFFABLE DUNCE”.
I liked Reagan. Maybe it was the jelly beans?
After all, he won the Cold War. We nearly went bankrupt in the process, but I think that’s a fair trade-off for always facing imminent MAD. And he had that nice guy quality, until you pushed him. In that way, he and Clinton shared some qualities. Clinton portrayed the nice guy image (although not too trustworthy), but I got the impression you didn’t want to piss him off or cross him.
Bush Jr. has proven to be someone you not only don’t want to pìšš øff, you don’t want to disagree or embarras him, either. Reminds me of Happy Fun Ball ™. Don’t taunt Happy Fun Ball.
The only problem I can see with an immediate investigation is that such investigations are going to inevitably need to see things that are sensitive to how we’re carrying out the war. In this partisan climate where everyone’s seeking headline fodder, I think it’s a relevent concern about how to inform the public of what’s going on without vital information being leaked to those our troops are engaging in combat every day. While I’m encouraged by the recent bi-partisan group from Congress that visited Gitmo, it was a brief trip, not a full-blown investigation like what you’re talking about, Bobb, that would have been easily planned around by even an isolated abuser. I guess what I’d like to debate isn’t whether or not there should be an investigation, but how such an investigation should be carried out in order to effectively do its job while both preventing or limiting the release of sensitive information and convincingly informing the public about what’s happening.
lol… but do you think President Bush is filled with a strange radioactive substance from another planet like the Happy Fun Ball?
As for the president debate, I think Reagan will be treated kindly by history, much moreso than I think Clinton will. Both had their triumphs and their faults, but come on, Reagan wins when it comes to the most important historical reference: the nickname – “Slick Willy” versus “the Great Communicator”? No contest.
Gosh, yes, just by virtue of spending communist Russia into oblivion, Reagan earns a bright spot in American history. And he probably did more to keep more Americans safe without needing to launch a war than our current President will do (I’m not taunting him)
Ack, I’ve mispoke. I don’t think we need a totally transparant investigation. What we need is an explanation of the the process, and enough results the settle public fears. Clearly, producing a tell-all style report might not be in the best interests of maintaining the integrity of our current mission.
I think if we assembled a non-partisan team (if such a thing even exists) composed of military, civlian, and private inspecters, give them full, unlimited access, and then let them generate a report that can be edited by the military for security. Excerpts of that report that are deemed non-classified can be released, and let the panel issue a generic statement of “green light,” meaning there’s nothing to worry about, or call for a more public process because they’ve encountered some signs that abuse is more widespread and sanctioned than we fear it is.
See, that’s pretty much exactly what’d I’d like to see in an investigation. But as you point out, in the current partisan and bile-filled state of politics, our chances of our leaders growing spines and reaching across the aisle to lead on this issue soon enough to get things going before next year’s elections is unlikely.
Is anyone else feeling like declaring political party free agency next year?
Ðámņìŧ. I didn’t mean to ascribe my own thoughts on the current state of politics to you, Bobb. I started writing one thought and switched to something else. Didn’t mean to put words in your mouth.
More like taking them from my brain before I can write them.
I think we’re one, maybe 2 elections away from some guy in Hoboken, NJ, declaring himself in the running for president, and conducting his entire campaign on the web. And watching the big two (not DC and Marvel) start out laughing at him, and then seeing them start to get nervous as polls start showing webman actually making an impact.
After all, he won the Cold War.
Nothing like having a war that recognized more for being a foot race to the finish line than anything else.
We nearly went bankrupt in the process, but I think that’s a fair trade-off for always facing imminent MAD
Fair trade off? Basically, your view is that it’s ok to mortgage away our future as long as we win now?
I suppose the analogy for today would be who cares how many American soldiers die as long as every terrorist is killed?
Either way, Reagan gets far too much credit for the end of the Soviet Union. The USSR would’ve collapsed under its own weight sooner or later, and Reagan was far too eager to speed the process.
But then, we now have Putin in office in Russia, who is ex-KGB, and treats the country like it’s Soviet rule all over again. So, I can’t say things have drastically improved.
That, and at times, you have to wonder if the Russians know who’s in control of all of their nukes.
Fair trade off? Basically, your view is that it’s ok to mortgage away our future as long as we win now?
Winning now is how you HAVE a future.
“I suppose the analogy for today would be who cares how many American soldiers die as long as every terrorist is killed?”
I wouldn’t make that analogy. Reagan spent money, not lives, and it is well know that in any capitalist society, government spending is great for the economy, and many people (starting with Alexander Hamilton actually) think that it is a good thing for the government to be in debt. Further, his part in brining down the USSR was huge, if not pivotal. And, if the USSR hadn’t come down when it did, it was only a matter of time before some minor conflict, similar to the clash in Korea, or Vietnam, or Israel, escalated into nuclear destruction. As for Putin, you can’t blame Reagan for that. He did what was needed, at the right time. He was instrumental in bringing tdown the greatest threat to the very existance of the world that has ever existed. As for the Russians not knowing who has control of the nukes, thanks to Reagan, they don’t have the money to build new ones, and most, if not all of the old ones are not usable. The only worries we have is them selling the plutonium to terrorists. And thanks to us bringing down the USSR, they never had the chance to learn how to make Nukes. If we hadn’t stopped the Soviets, then they would have taken over many middle eastern countries, and probably given them nuclear capability (either through building missile bases in the country, or by building nuclear reactors), which, when the Soviet Union did eventually fall, would have gone right to the governments who support terrorists. Now all we have to worry about is a dirty bomb. you know what the projected death toll is from a Nuke in Manhattan? hundreds of thousands. Projected death toll from a dirty bomb? 20. 19 from the blast, and one from cancer about ten years later. Personally, I think reagan did one hëll of a job. And one of the signs of his greatness is the polarized way in which he is uasually seen. He is usually only loved or hated. It has always been a sign of greatness that you are either loved or hated. Look at the presidents who people just kinda fell good about. none of them made any lasting change.
Personally, I think reagan did one hëll of a job. And one of the signs of his greatness is the polarized way in which he is uasually seen. He is usually only loved or hated. It has always been a sign of greatness that you are either loved or hated.
George Washington wasn’t a good president? Nor was Thomas Jefferson?
Perhaps the idealogues have duped you into thinking this, but I think the truth is rather different.
Allow me to condense much of the sentiment expressed above:
REAGAN SUCKS!
Speaking of tax dullards, the house voted itself another raise:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=890450
Before anyone defends this as a COLA raise, keep in mind that these are the same guys who are only giving the Veteran’s Administration a four-tenths of a percent raise. During wartime. When the number of vetrens they VA has to treat is increasing by a couple of thousand a month.
Allow me to condense much of the sentiment expressed above: REAGAN SUCKS!
Correction: SUCKED – past tense when the person’s dead.
Nor was Thomas Jefferson?
uhhhh….I don’t know who taught you history Roger, but ol’ TJ was one of the most contriversial presidents pre-Jackson. Despite his Democratic-Republican belief in a strict interpritation of the constitution, he went above his powers as president several times. Most notably was when he bought Louisiana from Napoleon, but he also passed the Embargo Act, which essentially halted all shipping. In a country as dependent on shipping as the US was, that was a devastating blow to a moajor industry. and, as you might surmise, was a little contriversial. He wasn’t as popular then. Also, it went against his beliefs. See, he believed that farming was the way of America’s future, and the Embargo act was quite a jump-start for American business. So he was contriversial and not popular. Washington too became less popular with the whole Whiskey rebellion. And who said the hate had to be American? I don’t think that ol’ George and TJ were all that popular in london, what with one having written the Declaration of Independence and the other having roundly kicked thier red-coated áššëš all over Yorktown. And the Idealogues tricking me into believing that Washington and Jefferson were bad presidents? I am insulted that you think I coud be that easily duped!!!
REAGAN SUCKS!
yeah ’cause out of 9 posts about him; 7 are directly complimentary, with two negative. my calculator makes that to be……78% directly in favor…plus you….is…89% who like Reagan. Yep. lots of reagan hatin’ going on tonight. Why don’t you learn how to do division, or at least get a nice ti-83? and when people support you, don’t attack them.
Is it even fair to compare presidents who are removed from each other by decades, even centuries? And I don’t think anyone was saying Reagan was great to the exclusion of all others. To be honest, while there have been some lame ducks and a couple of crooks, we should all be pretty dámņ happy with the number of competent-to-great presidents we’ve had from all respective political parties. It’s always been and always will be perhaps the most challenging job anyone can have, and the fact our nation has had such a great run over the last two and a quarter centuries is at least partly attributable to the collective work of these leaders.
LOL… gosh, you’d think there was a holiday coming up this weekend after reading that…