chopstickchakra
Active member
FDR = Franklin Delano Roosevelt
The Fed or Federal Reserve was put into play by Wilson iirc.
[Debate] America Best President? Is it obama?
- Thread starter Luther
- Start date
The Fed or Federal Reserve was put into play by Wilson iirc.
oh I see ^^
Lets not forget Obama pretty much taking over G. Bush's administration (patriot act) by signing the NDAA yet again, this year :heh:
Thomas Jefferson or FDR.
Not George Washington because he really didn't do much besides be the first.
Not JFK simply because of the Bay of Pigs invasion.
Not Lincoln because he genuinely didn't care if blacks were free or not and was only concerned about reuniting the US.
Not Obama because he hasn't done enough good.
Not George Washington because he really didn't do much besides be the first.
Not JFK simply because of the Bay of Pigs invasion.
Not Lincoln because he genuinely didn't care if blacks were free or not and was only concerned about reuniting the US.
Not Obama because he hasn't done enough good.
elitenoob94
Active member
Retro Chaos
Member
Lmao at 'Is it Obama?' - no. While he is not a bad president his accomplishments are minor compared to much more relevant presidents. How can anyone compare Obama to the likes of Lincoln, FDR, Eisenhower or JFK?
Because he has done nothing significant at all. Stop throwing the race card everywhere you attention *****. His race is irrelevant. Race is not everything.
Nixon? Buchanan? LBJ? Hoover? Tyler? These men were useless, how can you classify them as good?
Last edited:
Donald Trump
Active member
Awards
It's like every post you makes has to be relevant to racism, slavery, or african americans .3.
No president is perfect, since almost all of them had some flaw that made America worst. I personally prefer communism over presidency.
Kind of depends upon what you are looking for in a President.
I would have to say that George Washington would have to be the greatest President this nation has seen based on his conviction to an idea.
Washington didn't want power or authority and, as others have said, declined to be named King, insisting that it was a bad idea and not what the nation needed. He realized that the nation was more than capable of ruling itself (we did so for roughly 100 years while Britain was ignoring us and not meddling in our affairs).
Even though there were many others within the movement who felt similarly and who would have insisted on a Constitution, either way - the difference is that we could very easily have developed a parliamentary system with a concept of kingship had Washington accepted the temptation to have more power and authority.
Further, even with no rules restricting the term of the Presidency, Washington decided that two terms was enough, and declined to be a candidate for the third term.
It wasn't until Franklin Delano Roosevelt that any president had the hubris to seek the office more times than Washington - and the consequences of that led to an amendment restricting the terms of the President.
Therefor - I have to say that Washington is the greatest President from the standpoint of influence and integrity. No man has had so much influence on the office or the nation as Washington... and he did better than any man in his position could be expected to.
Jefferson would be a close second. It was Jefferson who established the policy of not negotiating with terrorists. He understood, back when the Ottoman Empire was still a thing, that when their proxy (the Barbary States) took hostages and demanded ransom - that paying the ransom would only lead to more hostage taking. It was Jefferson who immortalized the role of the U.S. Marines ("From the halls of Montezuma, to the shores of Tripoli . . ." ) - and it was Jackson who placed America on the global stage, militarily, by being one of the first nations to confront the Barbary States (and kick their ass).
In this act - Jefferson led not just the U.S. - but the western world in not tolerating the aggression of Islam. This led to relatively peaceful and free commerce throughout the world as empires began working collaboratively to keep shipping lanes safe for transport as opposed to enforce expansionary doctrines.
Lincoln is an over-hyped president. His importance to the nation should not be overlooked - but, at the same time, many of the man's policies were destructive, at best. He turned the military into a sort of 'palace guard' and, honestly, did as much to provoke the civil war as anything else. It was his 'my way or jail' mentality that spurred the states to declare secession.
FDR is another over-hyped President. What he did to the nation and the office of the president is deplorable, to say the least. That said, the man still had personal virtues and integrity (even if he was arrogant) that made him a strong leader (even if he had destructive policies and some misguided ideas). The man could move mountains when it came to people.
Obama wishes he had a hundredth of FDR's way with people. FDR's secret? He actually cared. He may have been misguided, but he genuinely cared.
Truman is an under-appreciated president (and not just because he came from my state). No other President has nuked a nation. Teddy Roosevelt can keep his big stick. Truman also fired one of his cabinet for firing the special prosecutor looking into corruption within the administration. The cabinet was inherited from FDR (who was surrounded by the communists).
Truman is why you have Samsung Galaxies and LG washing machines. Or - I should say - his decision to stand against the communist takeover of South Korea is.
It was Truman who backed the formation of the original U.N. and what would later become NATO. Keep in mind that it has changed, considerably in role and mentality since then.
I'll snippet from Wikipedia regarding his after-office years:
"Upon leaving the presidency, Truman returned to Independence, Missouri, to live at the Wallace home he and Bess had shared for years with her mother.[182] Once out of office, Truman quickly decided that he did not wish to be on any corporate payroll, believing that taking advantage of such financial opportunities would diminish the integrity of the nation's highest office. He also turned down numerous offers for commercial endorsements. Since his earlier business ventures had proved unsuccessful, he had no personal savings. As a result, he faced financial challenges. Once Truman left the White House, his only income was his old army pension: $112.56 per month.[183] Former members of Congress and the federal courts received a federal retirement package; President Truman himself ensured that former servants of the executive branch of government received similar support. In 1953, however, there was no such benefit package for former presidents,[184] and he received no pension for his Senate service.[185]
Truman took out a personal loan from a Missouri bank shortly after leaving office, and then set about establishing another precedent for future former chief executives: a book deal for his memoirs of his time in office. Ulysses S. Grant had overcome similar financial issues with his own memoirs, but the book had been published posthumously, and he had declined to write about life in the White House in any detail. For the memoirs, Truman received only a flat payment of $670,000, and had to pay two-thirds of that in tax; he calculated he got $37,000 after he paid his assistants.[186] However, the memoirs were a commercial and critical success;[187][188] they were published in two volumes in 1955 and 1956 by Doubleday (Garden City, N.Y) and Hodder & Stoughton (London): Memoirs by Harry S. Truman: Year of Decisions and Memoirs by Harry S. Truman: Years of Trial and Hope.[189][190]
Truman's predecessor, Franklin D. Roosevelt, had organized his own presidential library, but legislation to enable future presidents to do something similar had not been enacted. Truman worked to garner private donations to build a presidential library, which he donated to the federal government to maintain and operate—a practice adopted by his successors.[193] He testified before Congress to have money appropriated to have presidential papers copied and organized, and was proud of the bill's passage in 1957. Max Skidmore, in his book on the life of former presidents, noted that Truman was a well-read man, especially in history. Skidmore added that the presidential papers legislation and the founding of his library "was the culmination of his interest in history. Together they constitute an enormous contribution to the United States—one of the greatest of any former president."[194]"
While I am not in complete agreement with Truman's policies - he started a number of important traditions that have been beneficial to the concepts of transparency and historical research. While his own party has since twisted the idea into propaganda - Truman had a genuine belief that the American people should know what goes on within the Presidency and that the records should exist for historical review.
Obama is, perhaps, the worst president in history.
Not only does he not seem to understand what the Presidency is (or is deliberately using the position to act as a totalitarian), he also has one of the most hateful and condescending views of this nation.
His policies are a failure. He has divided his party (not that I'm opposed to that since they represent varying degrees of his same ideology), and he has the aura of a snake. He will say anything if it gets you to agree with him and he will do anything he can to destroy you from the shadows if you oppose him.
That is what he has done to our military. Those who oppose his hegemonic rule are fired. Those who disagree with him are lied about.
Bluntly, he is an evil man who should have been killed as a senator.
And, no, unemployment has not fallen under his administration (and even if it did, it is hardly a consequence of his policies).
Well, just to be clear I'm both an American and an Israeli citizen, but I'm a resident of the U.S. and have been my whole life. I think both governments have many flaws, but it does not mean that I do not support the governments or the countries as a whole. In an ideal world, countries would be independent, but sometimes that isn't possible for survival. Especially when Israel is surrounded by countries that want to destroy them. But if you want to be specific, what problem are you referring to?
You're right every country has flaws. But do there flaws outweigh the good they've done? Why is it that so many countries want to destroy them tho? The US needs to cut it's spending on foreign policy and especially to Israel. I think the reasoning for that is obvious. Israel’s current campaign against Gaza is an obvious violation of the laws of war prohibiting the attack on civilian persons and objects and attacks where civilian casualties outweigh claimed military gains.
The problem is not that politicians don't stick to their promises. The problem is that society believes it is the role of government to fulfill promises - to bestow favors upon the people.
That is the key problem, there.
What Obama does is beyond what any other president has done in history.
Benghazi.
Do you understand what happened, there? A terrorist attack carried out because we were using that installation to re-sell weapons to factions of the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda.
What did they do? Picked a youtube artist and threw him in jail for slandering the Qu'ran.
When -ISIS- had one of our soldiers (all evidence suggests he defected) held for ransom - what did he do? Gave them the top 5 Guantanamo detainees and sent our extraction team into about the worst LZ imaginable for helo extract. I'm surprised they didn't shoot the extraction team down.
Oh. And we gave millions in ransom to a phony.
He's used the Internal Revenue Service (the tax collection agency, which has the authority to freeze bank accounts and garnish wages) to target political opponents leading up to his campaign for re-election. When Congress has made attempts to investigate this, entire data logging systems that have triple redundancy all cannot be found. Apparently, everyone's hard drive crashed and no one knows where the back up tape and optical media are.
Documents show that the President knew that the "Affordable Care Act" would not allow people to keep their current insurance plans and would raise the average cost per capita of healthcare by CBO estimates - yet continued to propagate lies to the contrary.
You have one of the most hostile White House environments to journalists and the media, ever.
Just an example of the most recent fun:
[video=youtube;4KnCBJEj4Ek]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KnCBJEj4Ek[/video]
By his own statements, he has committed treason.
The only reason he was not impeached in his first term is because he's a Marxist with the backing of cronies in the media (NBC, for example, has not even covered the Gruber testimony). It's not even his race - if you had a black Republican in office doing the same things, he'd be eviscerated in the media (and probably assassinated by a black person).
This administration has been completely and totally lawless. It has acted as if it has totalitarian authority and can decree any order 'out of necessity.'
They know that courts take time to deliberate on actions taken and that they can simply issue more executive orders than can be taken to court efficiently (or at least so that they will accomplish the objective before the courts overturn the executive order).
It's so far beyond impeachment that it isn't funny. He should be on trial for treason along with most of his cabinet and appointees.
The region has been highly anti-Semitic for ages. The Palestinian (FATEH) Constitution literally calls for the destruction of Israel. And then you have people saying stuff like this--
PA Mufti Muhammad Hussein: “Palestine in its entirety is a revolution… continuing today, and until the End of Days. The reliable Hadith… says:
"The Hour [of Resurrection] will not come until you fight the Jews. The Jew will hide behind stones or trees. Then the stones or trees will call: 'Oh Muslim, servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.'”
[PA TV (Fatah), Jan. 9, 2012]
There was that incident a few weeks ago when two terrorists attacked a Jerusalem synagogue and killed 5 people. Some people in Gaza started celebrating in the streets and passing out candy and calling for death to Jews. Some Israelis are saying similar things about the people in Gaza. It's a complicated issue for sure. Sane people will not support civilian deaths. But when you have terrorist groups like Hamas controlling the Gaza strip and telling civilians not to evacuate, death happens. If Israel did nothing to fight terrorism, they would be destroyed.
Last edited:
A lot of it stems from hatred due to israel bombing of innocent civilians, hospitals (which is a war crime), and children. And especially since israel's occupation is illegal. You can't build settlements on occupied land. If I'm not mistaken that is illegal by international laws. And I think building barriers also conflicts with international laws.
Edit: Compare israel's attacks vs hamas attacks. Israel has an app to warn people of possible bombings. While Palestinians have nothing. Not only that but you remember that funding we were talking about? Israel has far better weapons than hamas. Yet they deliberately fire in densely populated areas as well.
Last edited:
I don't think our -government- should be involved with funding other countries, foreign aid, etc.
That said, I believe our people should be very active in the rest of the world as businesses and citizens - and, to be quite honest, I believe the majority of them support Israel and have no issue with Israel.
Our government needs to stay out of it because it is a place where people of small minds go to have a big mouth (which is why our government should be as small as functionally possible).
Of course, I also believe that if our people were to be more involved as citizens with the rest of the world, they would consider killing those who adhere to the Qu'ran (particularly Surat At Tawbah) a community service.
Everyone likes to live in their little fantasy world where the only reason other people want to kill you is that you've somehow offended them in the past. It's all a misunderstanding that can be resolved by sitting down and talking things out.
Unfortunately, as I've stated elsewhere, that's not the reality. Wars are fought because of ideologies. It isn't so much a lack of resources but who has authority over resources verses who believes they should have authority over those resources. Human beings - and the minds thereof - are resources in the grand scale of things (one could even say our souls are resources if you consider a spiritual element to things).
If someone believes he should have control over something he doesn't - the only thing that prevents him from killing to obtain it is his own convictions/morality and the perceived justice in the act (killing someone over who sits in the front seat of the car is not nearly as justifiable as killing someone over who gets to come inside your house and take things out of it). Practicality is another factor - but human beings are exceptionally resourceful, and practicality is directly proportional to motivation.
Thus, wars happen as a conflict of ideologies - not as misunderstandings.
There is no confusion between Israel and Islam. There may be individuals who are confused - but they are so deeply rooted into a culture that it will require forced removal from that culture to get them to even realize a different perspective is valid, much less that theirs may be unacceptable.