| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/19/2008 01:42:05 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by ryand:
I'll have to throw in a vote for Ronald Reagan, He was one of the most solid presidents that we have had and he managed to end a war before it started.
I could also throw in a vote for Clinton, because he is a loser and sleeps around, also he was such a genius in letting murderous criminals go. Gotta love some Clinton. |
And from a "Christian" too... |
|
|
|
01/19/2008 02:06:25 AM · #27 |
|
|
|
01/19/2008 02:11:48 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by karmat:
I do not argue your choices, nor do I disagree with you largely. I do, however, think it needs to be pointed out that there are is an inherent danger in picking the best of anything from history.
Yes, we have a lot of information and history to base our decisions on. However, we also have hindsight. Had I been alive at the time of FDR's New Deals, I doubt I would have been liking him very much at all. Those reservoirs that you mentioned? They weren't built on empty fields and plains. Generations of homesteads and farms were forced with little, and sometimes no, compensation from their lands. Over 60 years later, residents of one area is still waiting for a road to their cemeteries that the government promised to build when it made the Fontana Dam. Road to Nowhere
Every decision he (and other presidents) made, adversely effected someone.
Also, situations and "criteria" change as time goes by. If GWB tried to do similar things that FDR did, there would be hell to pay. It is kinda like saying that Tiger Woods is the best golfer, ever. Perhaps, but if Arnold Palmer or Sam Sneed had the same training, opportunities, and technology that Tiger has had, would they have been as good or better? We simply cannot know. The same in politics. When Lincoln was president, how many citizens actually saw him live? Heard him speak? Read what he wrote? Knew what he was doing from day to day. I daresay if we could have had the information on the guys "back then" like we do now, our opinions would be vastly different. It is one thing to say that President XXX in the 1800s was a womanizer; it is quite another to make that information available in real time, for months on end. I guess my point is, many of the things that scandalize presidents today may have been going on then, we just didn't know about it. |
I agree. GWB gets criticized for everything he does and rightly so but even he couldn't get away with some of the things FDR did in his time. I would go as far to say that FDR would have a far lower approval rating if he were president today.
Message edited by author 2008-01-19 02:14:20. |
|
|
|
01/19/2008 08:05:18 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by yanko:
I agree. GWB gets criticized for everything he does and rightly so but even he couldn't get away with some of the things FDR did in his time. I would go as far to say that FDR would have a far lower approval rating if he were president today. |
His "approval ratings" at the time were good enough to get him elected to 4 consecutive terms. Americans were struggling to come out of the great depression when he was first elected, and just possibly were a little more realistic about biting the bullet than we current citizens are?
R.
|
|
|
|
01/19/2008 08:41:20 AM · #30 |
I think George Washington was amazeing. I think you have to count what he did before his presidency as part of his presidency, for if it wasn't for him, there would have been no presidency. He single handedly won a war that was impossible to win. He rejected an offer of royalty and helped form a unique and succesful government that even today is the envy of the rest of the world.
It is way too early to judge G. W. Bush. My personal feeling is that he will be relatively highly rated 50 years from now. Lincoln was hated, FDR was hated by many, Truman was greatly hated, and Regan was hated (I remember people calling him stupid and trying to impeach him for Iran-Contra affair. Once there is a different president to hate, and the settles from the Bush presidency, a less emotional evaluation will be made. For now, it is probably not possible to figure out his ultimate ranking in history. |
|
|
|
01/19/2008 09:36:34 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by yanko:
I agree. GWB gets criticized for everything he does and rightly so but even he couldn't get away with some of the things FDR did in his time. I would go as far to say that FDR would have a far lower approval rating if he were president today. |
His "approval ratings" at the time were good enough to get him elected to 4 consecutive terms. Americans were struggling to come out of the great depression when he was first elected, and just possibly were a little more realistic about biting the bullet than we current citizens are?
R. |
I think people now are more critical of elected officials, and less trusting. If FDR were president now, he wouldn't be able to accomplish a 1/3 of what he did. Too many lobbyists, too many special interests, too many strangleholds in congress. |
|
|
|
01/19/2008 09:45:32 AM · #32 |
| I think all of todays politicians are crooks and we need to kick them all out and start new ,,, Term limits for all |
|
|
|
01/19/2008 10:16:36 AM · #33 |
And chop the heads off the ones caught feathering their own nest.
|
|
|
|
01/19/2008 10:21:10 AM · #34 |
I am for term limits for Senators and Representatives. Give them two terms, get some new blood in there every so often.
Message edited by author 2008-01-19 10:21:25. |
|
|
|
01/19/2008 10:28:31 AM · #35 |
| Don't forget - Term limits for the Supreme Court. |
|
|
|
01/19/2008 10:38:37 AM · #36 |
| What, nobody votes for Slippy? |
|
|
|
01/19/2008 10:40:38 AM · #37 |
Originally posted by eschelar:
What,  nobody votes for Slippy? |
Yeah, but he's about the only one.
|
|
|
|
01/19/2008 10:58:22 AM · #38 |
Originally posted by karmat:
His "approval ratings" at the time were good enough to get him elected to 4 consecutive terms. Americans were struggling to come out of the great depression when he was first elected, and just possibly were a little more realistic about biting the bullet than we current citizens are?
R. |
I think people now are more critical of elected officials, and less trusting. If FDR were president now, he wouldn't be able to accomplish a 1/3 of what he did. Too many lobbyists, too many special interests, too many strangleholds in congress. [/quote]
Yes, that's more-or-less my point :-)
R.
|
|
|
|
01/19/2008 11:03:53 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Hoover didn't suck. |
Yes he did, Ushered in the Great Depression, and boy did THAT suck. |
|
|
|
01/19/2008 11:08:43 AM · #40 |
Originally posted by cloudsme:
It is way too early to judge G. W. Bush. My personal feeling is that he will be relatively highly rated 50 years from now. |
I think that largely depends on the long term outcome of the Iraq war. If 50 years from now Iraq is a thriving democracy then GW will be remembered well, even if his motives for invading were bogus.
If it is the anything like it is today, or a country that looks more like Iran, GW will be blamed for one of the worst unilateral military decisions in History.
My feeling is that it is more likely to be the latter than the former. |
|
|
|
01/19/2008 11:14:49 AM · #41 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Hoover didn't suck. |
Yes he did, Ushered in the Great Depression, and boy did THAT suck. |
Nothing like a Depression to bolster national pride. Without it, we wouldn't have the "when I was your age" stories. :-D
|
|
|
|
01/19/2008 11:17:04 AM · #42 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Hoover didn't suck. |
Yes he did, Ushered in the Great Depression, and boy did THAT suck. |
Nothing like a Depression to bolster national pride. Without it, we wouldn't have the "when I was your age" stories. :-D |
Well that's true, nothing can match a generation of guilt trips. ;-) |
|
|
|
01/19/2008 11:19:35 AM · #43 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Hoover didn't suck. |
Yes he did, Ushered in the Great Depression, and boy did THAT suck. |
Nothing like a Depression to bolster national pride. Without it, we wouldn't have the "when I was your age" stories. :-D |
The great depression take time to develop alot more than one year. it take least 20 years to develop just like the 2nd will be!! |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 12:34:16 PM EDT.
