Who was the worst president, and why?

[grimmie 173]

I think Ronald Reagan is a shoe in for the top spot.

[rickjump1 0]

grimmie

I think Ronald Reagan is a shoe in for the top spot.

He certainly brought dignity back to the military, and when he told Gorbachev to tear down that wall....what an act? He had his faults, but I believe he was needed for that particular time, and I liked him. None of these guys were perfect.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[rickjump1 0]

ShcShc11

Quote

Don't let anyone tell you it was wrong to drop atomic bombs on Japan. Those bombs not only saved thousands of American lives, they also saved thousands of Japanese lives."

Thousands of Japanese?
You mean millions of Japanese. 20 million Japanese civilians were to be starved in a year-long Navy Blockade.

20 thousand Koreans were dying each month as the war prolonged.

Chinese, Filipinos still under Japanese rule were also dying; not necessarily because Japanese were cruel but because their logistical system were completely broken. If the Japanese can't feed themselves, then they can't feed the people they occupy as well.



Cheers!
Shc

Sad fact in a good post. You are right.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[kelpdiver 2]

grimmie

I think Ronald Reagan is a shoe in for the top spot.

If you think that, you're answering emotionally, because there's really no objective criteria you could use that would result in him as worst.

[kelpdiver 2]

rickjump1

***
Do yourself a favour, stop parroting right wing talking points and learn to think critically.
HTH

Shameful and closed minded.

so much irony here.

[quade 3]

kelpdiver

***I think Ronald Reagan is a shoe in for the top spot.

If you think that, you're answering emotionally, because there's really no objective criteria you could use that would result in him as worst.

Worst? Probably not.

Hypocritical? He's a front runner for sure.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[skypuppy 1]

Stumpy

********* He was raised and tutored to be a communist.

The whole rest of your post negated by this. Shame.Do yourself a favor and research Frank Marshall Davis and his relationship with Barack Hussein Obama.

Do yourself a favour, stop parroting right wing talking points and learn to think critically.
HTH

Do yourself a favor and stop believing that just because you see something one way, anyone who's sees it another way is wrong. Sheesh.

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[jakee 1,254]

skypuppy

************ He was raised and tutored to be a communist.

The whole rest of your post negated by this. Shame.Do yourself a favor and research Frank Marshall Davis and his relationship with Barack Hussein Obama.

Do yourself a favour, stop parroting right wing talking points and learn to think critically.
HTH

Do yourself a favor and stop believing that just because you see something one way, anyone who's sees it another way is wrong. Sheesh.

Except the truth rarely lies mid way between two opposing viewpoints, and it has been demonstrated many times that the sources Rick uses for his anti-Obama information are at best mistaken and at worst (and most often) outright lies. Heck, one link he posted to discredit Obama was an honest to god April Fools joke.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Stumpy 256]

skypuppy

************ He was raised and tutored to be a communist.

The whole rest of your post negated by this. Shame.Do yourself a favor and research Frank Marshall Davis and his relationship with Barack Hussein Obama.

Do yourself a favour, stop parroting right wing talking points and learn to think critically.
HTH

Do yourself a favor and stop believing that just because you see something one way, anyone who's sees it another way is wrong. Sheesh.

The same people who complain that Obama is:
A Nazi
A Socialist
Pandering to big business

Now proclaim that he is a communist.

Think about that for a second.

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[grue 1]

Stumpy

*************** He was raised and tutored to be a communist.

The whole rest of your post negated by this. Shame.Do yourself a favor and research Frank Marshall Davis and his relationship with Barack Hussein Obama.

Do yourself a favour, stop parroting right wing talking points and learn to think critically.
HTH

Do yourself a favor and stop believing that just because you see something one way, anyone who's sees it another way is wrong. Sheesh.

The same people who complain that Obama is:
A Nazi
A Socialist
Pandering to big business

Now proclaim that he is a communist.

Think about that for a second.

I just say he's an asshole and a horrible human being.

cavete terrae.

[Duckwater 0]

JFK….He dang near started a nuclear war… And he was on Meth.

[rickjump1 0]

grue

****************** He was raised and tutored to be a communist.

The whole rest of your post negated by this. Shame.Do yourself a favor and research Frank Marshall Davis and his relationship with Barack Hussein Obama.

Do yourself a favour, stop parroting right wing talking points and learn to think critically.
HTH

Do yourself a favor and stop believing that just because you see something one way, anyone who's sees it another way is wrong. Sheesh.

The same people who complain that Obama is:
A Nazi
A Socialist
Pandering to big business

Now proclaim that he is a communist.

Think about that for a second.

I just say he's an asshole and a horrible human being. No sugarcoat here.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[quade 3]

Mmmm, 7-layer quote burrito.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[grimmie 173]

kelpdiver

***I think Ronald Reagan is a shoe in for the top spot.

If you think that, you're answering emotionally, because there's really no objective criteria you could use that would result in him as worst.

Study the facts and get back to me. And I voted for him once

[davjohns 1]

RobertMBlevins

Worst US President ever? My vote goes to William Henry Harrison for sure.

He gave a REALLY long speech in the rain on the day he took office, against better advice. There was no cover for him at the podium. This caused him to catch pneumonia shortly afterward, and although he tried to tough it out in the Oval Office, and signed a few bills, he died 32 days later. Some accounts say he didn't catch cold until three weeks after he took office, but his two-hour speech in the rain certainly didn't help matters. When he got sick, they tried leeches and Virginia snakeweed for cures. Most of the people who came to the White House to visit him were office-seekers. Most likely, he should have taken the offered covered carriage to his speech instead of riding on horseback, and stayed out of the rain for that two hours. His death caused a crisis in the Whig Party and they never really recovered.

Hmmmm...I guess it's a point of view issue. This puts him in the running for best President in my book. He did something stupid that hurt people who volunteered for it (were equally stupid) and effected him more than anyone else. Since you don't mention what he signed, I'm guessing he did not raise taxes, create wide ranging useless programs, etc. And even if he did blame his predecessor for things, his term was short enough that he was probably right. His death caused problems for his party? That makes him a bad President? Nah!

To poke you just a little more, the long held wive's tale that being in the cold rain makes you sick has long since been disproved. At great government expense, tests were done on volunteers. The researchers discovered that cold and water do not make you sick. Germs make you sick. Who knew?

All in good fun, my friend. You could argue that this guy gave us nothing in return for the effort it took to put him in office, but I generally vote for people hoping they will screw things up less than the last person. That makes WHH a winner with me.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[rickjump1 0]

jakee

*************** He was raised and tutored to be a communist.

The whole rest of your post negated by this. Shame.Do yourself a favor and research Frank Marshall Davis and his relationship with Barack Hussein Obama.

Do yourself a favour, stop parroting right wing talking points and learn to think critically.
HTH

Do yourself a favor and stop believing that just because you see something one way, anyone who's sees it another way is wrong. Sheesh.

Except the truth rarely lies mid way between two opposing viewpoints, and it has been demonstrated many times that the sources Rick uses for his anti-Obama information are at best mistaken and at worst (and most often) outright lies. Heck, one link he posted to discredit Obama was an honest to god April Fools joke.Yeah jakee, and if only Hitler had been black, you would be speaking German.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[jakee 1,254]

rickjump1

Yeah jakee, and if only Hitler had been black, you would be speaking German.

What?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[kelpdiver 2]

grimmie

******I think Ronald Reagan is a shoe in for the top spot.

If you think that, you're answering emotionally, because there's really no objective criteria you could use that would result in him as worst.

Study the facts and get back to me. And I voted for him once

I have a degree the subject. And unlike many, an ability to view our political figures from a detached frame of reference.

Reagan was not the worst in Executive Branch abuses, he was not the worst in fiscal responsibility (If Obama can spend his way out of 2008, then Reagan certainly could do the same for the 70s). He didn't engage in significant wars abroad that did little but kill soldiers. In short, while there's no small list of things to quibble about, that's true of every two term President. To reiterate, there's no criteria that will place him as worst.

[quade 3]

kelpdiver

To reiterate, there's no criteria that will place him as worst.

He used his Hollywood connections to dodge the draft during WWII, so he could play soldier in the movies. He seized every opportunity unions could offer him on the way up to becoming a union boss and when he got there, he betrayed them. He betrayed his fellow co-workers during the HUAC and McCarthy trials. He set the stage for the destruction of the middle class in America as we knew it at the time when he became the President of union busters by firing the air traffic controllers. He as much as told every corporate head they could ignore the contracts they'd made with labor and do whatever they wanted. He opened the floodgates to shipping jobs overseas and closing plants in the US.

In my book that means there's at least one criteria; hypocrisy.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[grimmie 173]

We'll need to discuss this over beer.

Iran Contra should have put him and his cronies in jail.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Based upon various books that I have read, we offered to do an example drop in a remote area. The problem was ( IMO ) that we demanded an unconstitutional ( total ) surrender by Japan. This was in retaliation due to what they did to us at Pearl Harbor.

The problem was that the Japanese congress needed 100% agreement to surender and they were never going to get that because of a few war hawks. IIRC, they actually had votes and could not get the 100%.

Quote

Japan would not agree to an unconstitutional surrender so we did not do an example drop.

We had two bombs, we didn't even know if they would work. We could not set up a demonstration and have it fail - We would have looked worse.

Also while the destruction was massive... The firebombing of Tokyo killed more people, again IIRC.

The massive destruction from ONE bomb (and the lie that we had many more of them) forced the Emperor to ask the Congress to agree to the surrender.

[kelpdiver 2]

grimmie

We'll need to discuss this over beer.

Iran Contra should have put him and his cronies in jail.

quite possibly, but I can't see it trumping Nixon's war in Cambodia, or LBJ's use of the likely false Tonkin incident to make Vietnam a massive fight. Much bigger crimes with much bigger consequences.

[kelpdiver 2]

quade

***To reiterate, there's no criteria that will place him as worst.

He used his Hollywood connections to dodge the draft during WWII, so he could play soldier in the movies. He seized every opportunity unions could offer him on the way up to becoming a union boss and when he got there, he betrayed them. He betrayed his fellow co-workers during the HUAC and McCarthy trials. He set the stage for the destruction of the middle class in America as we knew it at the time when he became the President of union busters by firing the air traffic controllers. He as much as told every corporate head they could ignore the contracts they'd made with labor and do whatever they wanted. He opened the floodgates to shipping jobs overseas and closing plants in the US.

In my book that means there's at least one criteria; hypocrisy.

This reminds me of the Jew who collected nazi propaganda because it made him feel powerful. You're accrediting Reagan with driving many trends that were going to happen - plants closed in the US because (clean) power and labor costs more here. The Toyota Corolla predated the 80s by a good long while. The commodization of many middle class careers (ie, outsourcing) was also inevitable.

Reagan was drafted, and restricted to limited duty due to his vision. He also turned 31 2 months after Pearl Harbor. So forgive me for not considering this remotely like actions by Bush or Clinton. Since back then we actually funded our wars with bond sales, his propaganda work was a substantial contribution to the war effort. If you want to talk about rumored claims to have freed Jews at the concentration camps, that's a bit more interesting.

[winsor 186]

DaVinci

Quote

Based upon various books that I have read, we offered to do an example drop in a remote area. The problem was ( IMO ) that we demanded an unconstitutional ( total ) surrender by Japan. This was in retaliation due to what they did to us at Pearl Harbor.

The problem was that the Japanese congress needed 100% agreement to surender and they were never going to get that because of a few war hawks. IIRC, they actually had votes and could not get the 100%.

***Japan would not agree to an unconstitutional surrender so we did not do an example drop.

We had two bombs, we didn't even know if they would work. We could not set up a demonstration and have it fail - We would have looked worse.

Also while the destruction was massive... The firebombing of Tokyo killed more people, again IIRC.

The massive destruction from ONE bomb (and the lie that we had many more of them) forced the Emperor to ask the Congress to agree to the surrender.

You will note the Diet took the destruction of another couple of cities by USAAF bombers very much in stride. When the Soviet Union declared war and invaded territory held by Imperial Japanese forces, however, the decision was made to surrender to the U.S..

The point is valid that Curtis W. LeMay's had already gone a long way toward his stated goal of reducing the Japanese populaton "by half" by the time we used nukes, and that no new benchmark of atrocity was set by using one bomb vs. the waves of H.E. and incendiaries that was the norm.

As Richard Rhodes pointed out, nukes serve better as a threat than as a military tool. In practice, most WMDs have had limited use more because of the difficulties associated with their application than because they are overly effective.

A review of statistics from the Great War show that high explosive artillery was much more effective in producing lasting casualties than any chemical weapons turned out to be. If you survived a gas attack, you were in much better shape than if you had parts blown off and survived (see "Johnny Got His Gun").

The Geneva Accords, like the previous Hague accords related to types of munitions, were all about emotion and politics, rather than a serious attempt to reduce the horrors of war. Per the Hague Accords, the abolition of expanding projectiles (like the Mk. II .303 cartridges as modified at the Dum Dum Arsenal) was more to provide advantage to the various Mauser cartridges, whose terminal ballistics at 2,700+ fps were vastly superior the Lee-Metford offering at 1,800 some-odd fps if both were in hardball form. Needless to say, the forces using Mausers delighted in portraying the Brits as brutal, and the U.K. yielded to public opinion on the issue.

The Mk VI .303 cartridge as used in the SMLE reduced the advantage of the German high velocity cartridge, and there was nothing to be gained by revisiting the nonsense contained in the Hague Accords.

In a sense the greatest damage caused by nukes is economic. The cost of producing said devices is so horrendous that it puts a huge dent in the economy of any country that sees fit to produce them. If, instead of manufacturing all the various devices we did, we had saved the resources and put the cash into interest-producing accounts, we would be in much better fincancial shape than we now are. As I understand it, maintaining such a wonderful military system was the primary reason the Evil Empire filed Chapter 7 bankrupcy, and we seem to be unavoidably on the same path.

Back to Truman: if he had honored the agrement with the Viet Minh that had existed under FDR, and not left the Japanese in charge of French Indochina until de Gaulle could get enough former SS troops (who do you think the Legion Etrangere was at the time?) to reoccupy, we would have had Vietnam as a strong ally, unlike the way it turned out.

Nobody bats 1000, but he whiffed a couple of big ones.


BSBD,

Winsor

[kelpdiver 2]

winsor

In a sense the greatest damage caused by nukes is economic. The cost of producing said devices is so horrendous that it puts a huge dent in the economy of any country that sees fit to produce them. If, instead of manufacturing all the various devices we did, we had saved the resources and put the cash into interest-producing accounts, we would be in much better fincancial shape than we now are. As I understand it, maintaining such a wonderful military system was the primary reason the Evil Empire filed Chapter 7 bankrupcy, and we seem to be unavoidably on the same path.

Not buying this. Nukes are a lot cheaper than maintaining a large military to defend the borders, and they're a hell of a lot cheaper than actual wars. Israel since the Yom Kippur War has only had to deal with suicide bombers and sponsored fighting groups, rather than nations. (ignoring Syria's attempt to develop nukes a few years ago)

100 deliverable, safe from first strike attack, nukes is all you need to present a scary deterrent. The US and USSR insisted on having 10s of thousands, with a non existent marginal gain for each additional unit, and this manner of thinking convinced the Soviets that Star Wars represented a serious threat because it might stop a percentage of their ICBMs (while ignoring the other delivery mechanisms).