Just for the sake of discussion, who are the best and worst presidents in your opinion?
Best: 1. Washington 2. Lincoln 3. FDR 4. Jefferson
Worst: 1. Nixon 2. Harding 3. Jackson 4. Buchanon
I think that Washington has to be #1 simply based on the fact that he really defined the role of a president.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bushsupporter:
Nixon did a lot of good things - getting out of Nam, reestablishing relations with China - but his scandal keeps him out of the top three.

FDR had huge government policies and Keynsian economics but his winning of WWII keeps him out of the worst category.
QUOTE]
Just a second bushsupporter, Nixon did end Vietnam but didn't he let it drag on for four too many years. Are you aware of what a horrible thing he did in regard to Watergate? You can't even dispute that, because there is documented and recorded evidence of his actions. And FDR? You say he handled the economy poorly. What about the New Deal? Didn't he bring our country out of a Depression and find work for the unemployed?

But Eleanor might have been a lesbian, and lesbians are all evil. [/sarcasm]

Yeah, I think

quote:

---

You cringing bit of filth

---

is pretty accurate. Anyone who's anti-peace deserves that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by redrepublican:
elanor was borderline communist. its not wonder you like her.

---

You cringing bit of filth, it is because of Eleanor that we have any Social Security, and an international bill of rights, not to mention her opening of the civil rights movements, by her heroic preliminary battles for de-segragation. But I forgot, you want the common people to be opressed by the rich until they cannot stand. You defile her honor and name by speaking or typing it.

"Wrong. Bush and Saddam are individuals, I know their specific actions that's how I can say they are "evil"or whatever and have an opinion about them. You do not know the entire french population(over 50 million people) so you cannot talk about them as one person."


io dont talk about them as they are one person. i can make statements abou tthe majority and the general attitude however.


I talked about Saddam and Bush because they are the ones you put in your example that's all. You do not know how the majority of french people are.

" I've tried to explain to my friends that the US has almost 300 million people so you cannot generalize and talk as if it's one person."

if the majority supports bush you can say the country supports bush but however there are those who dont. that is true in almost every genralization. there is two sides to every belief. there are those that do and those that dont. but right now moajority feels right with bush.

yes unfortunately


"I'm not blinded by my hatred towards Bush, I simply happen to disagree with the war and it's reasons(wich were not liberating 50 million people)"

how are we not?

the reasons to start the war were not to liberate 50 million people, the reason the Bush administration originaly gave was that Iraq had WMDs(if you read my post it says "I happen to disagree with the war and it's REASONS")

are you referring to Mena bauhaus?

"Wrong. Bush and Saddam are individuals, I know their specific actions that's how I can say they are "evil"or whatever and have an opinion about them. You do not know the entire french population(over 50 million people) so you cannot talk about them as one person."


io dont talk about them as they are one person. i can make statements abou tthe majority and the general attitude however.

" I've tried to explain to my friends that the US has almost 300 million people so you cannot generalize and talk as if it's one person."

if the majority supports bush you can say the country supports bush but however there are those who dont. that is true in almost every genralization. there is two sides to every belief. there are those that do and those that dont. but right now moajority feels right with bush.

"I'm not blinded by my hatred towards Bush, I simply happen to disagree with the war and it's reasons(wich were not liberating 50 million people)"

how are we not?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by redrepublican:
"do you know every french person?You should not generalize."


do i know saddam? by your logic, id have to know saddam to tell whetether or not he is evil or not. and generalization is not a bad thing if its the truth about teh majority. the country supports bush. thats a genralization. but, by and large, its the truth.
do you know bush? well then how can you say he is an idiot with a low IQ if you dont know him?


Wrong. Bush and Saddam are individuals, I know their specific actions that's how I can say they are "evil"or whatever and have an opinion about them. You do not know the entire french population(over 50 million people) so you cannot talk about them as one person. It seems to me you don't know what generalization means. I'll give you an example of a big generalization: I live in Spain like I've told you before and I constantly have to deal with generalizations about the American people. I've tried to explain to my friends that the US has almost 300 million people so you cannot generalize and talk as if it's one person.


"Lots do, but I think they have every right to after how we reacted when they didn't support Bush's stupid war."


after all of this time you have yet to prove that this war is stupid. you are against it becvcause you dont want to see him suceed. you are blindedby your own hatred for this man.

I'm not blinded by my hatred towards Bush, I simply happen to disagree with the war and it's reasons(wich were not liberating 50 million people)



"Well lots of people seem to use that excuse with Bush "he's only human, he can make mistakes""

oh maya, why are you genralizing? you shouldnt be generalizing! hmm who do i sound like? hypocrite.

got me there red, just change it for "some people" instead of lots and there you go. Some people seem to use that excuse with Bush "he's only human, he can make mistakes" so I don't see why they don't apply it with Clinton. Happy now?

quote:

---

Originally posted by clpo13:
Right. No offense meant, bauhaus. It just came as a slap to the face after what Reagan did to boost the US economy. Speaking of economy, redrepublican, you should visit this site:
http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/oecon/chap3.htm
Look especially under the heading The 1990s and Beyond. You'll find what you wanted to hear about Clinton.

---

Giving crack to the ghettos and ignoring HIV/AIDS when it first started.

Right. No offense meant, bauhaus. It just came as a slap to the face after what Reagan did to boost the US economy. Speaking of economy, redrepublican, you should visit this site:
Brief History of US Economy
Look especially under the heading The 1990s and Beyond. You'll find what you wanted to hear about Clinton.

Reagan?? Worst?? What have you been smoking?

Worst = Reagan, Johnson, Clinton, Nixon

quote:

---

not with the way our economy is going. it is projected to expand by nearly twenty percent ove r the next five years.

---

Ah, ah, ah. Proof?

quote:

---

where is your source for this? havent you ever taken debate? back it up with facts

---

No, I haven't taken debate. But if you want a source, all you have to do is ask. According to the Bureau of the Public Debt, as of yesterday, the national deficit was $7,536,267,845,909.18. For those of you who aren't good with numbers, that's over $7.5 trillion. Happy?

quote:

---

thankyou reagen

---

Wrong economy boom. Reagan brought the economy up, then it dropped during Bush, Sr.'s administration. It went up again with Clinton, and Dubya let it drop again. It may be coming up, but I've yet to see solid proof of that.

"Sources? You want sources? I'd do that if I had anything to prove. Point something out to me and I'll get you your source."

trilions of dollars in debt. last i read, it was projected in the trilions in the future.

"Now who's generalizing?"


im not the one who said it was bad to generalize. i dont care if i generlize if its true about most people.

" Sure, there are some Americans who are nice and generous, but if you think all or most are, you haven't driven on the freeway lately."


thats a small percentage of 270 million americans.

"Okay, so the US is the one spending the most money as aid for the Southeast Asian tsunami disaster. Why? Because we like to throw our money around."


this actually proves my point. we are a kind benevolent nation. whenever there is a crisi in the world, we are there with relief. thats just what America is.

"This whole deal will put us even more in debt."


not with the way our economy is going. it is projected to expand by nearly twenty percent ove r the next five years.

" but when the nation is already trillions of dollars in debt,"

where is your source for this? havent you ever taken debate? back it up with facts.

" That's why I brought up Clinton fixing up the economy. During his time in office, the economy frickin' boomed."

thankyou reagen.

"So in my book, anyone who did anything to prop the economy up is a good president regardless of whether he was unfaithful to his wife."

well take a look at mr. bush then. stock marke has expanded by 48% we are headed towards a great economy. because of what? less government regulation! which mean what? no socialism! which mean capitalism actually works!

"It was a personal problem, so why the hell did we almost kick him out of office?"

no because leaders are held to higher standards. what must i do to drill this into your head?

" nobody would have been the wiser."

another bone headed argument.

Sources? You want sources? I'd get some if I had anything to prove. Point something out to me and I'll get you your proof.

"Ya know, red, answering a statement with a question isn't a bright way to clear up an argument."

i was proving how fallible your um..."logic" was.

" What you're doing here is opinion-based arguing. Come on. If you want to make anyone take you seriously, find some facts. And while you're at it, drop the preconceived notion that liberals are evil. Everyone is sick of that talk. "

where did i say liberals are evcil? i never said that anywhere wwho is jamming words down who's throat? imbecile. facts? dont talk to me about facts when i havent seen one source out of you yet.

quote:

---

fact is , the people of America are some of the most genorous people you'll meet. you come here and we'll show you around. we will show you a good time without thinking twice about who the person is.

---

Now who's generalizing? Sure, there are some Americans who are nice and generous, but if you think all or most are, you haven't driven on the freeway lately. Okay, so the US is the one spending the most money as aid for the Southeast Asian tsunami disaster. Why? Because we like to throw our money around. This whole deal will put us even more in debt. Oh, I don't disagree with giving them aid, I'm all for that, but when the nation is already trillions of dollars in debt, it makes you wonder why we aren't doing anything to lessen the debt. That's why I brought up Clinton fixing up the economy. During his time in office, the economy frickin' boomed. So in my book, anyone who did anything to prop the economy up is a good president regardless of whether he was unfaithful to his wife. It was a personal problem, so why the hell did we almost kick him out of office? Because, as red says, it makes our country look stupid. But if we had dropped the whole deal, nobody would have been the wiser.

quote:

---

no my statements stand as a beacon that shines through the mess of your ignorant babble.

---

And finally, you're only saying that because you don't want to admit you can't use correct punctuation and grammar.

Ya know, red, answering a statement with a question isn't a bright way to clear up an argument. I've seen one statement you answered with another statement, and there, you put words in another persons mouth. Jeez, haven't you ever taken debate? What you're doing here is opinion-based arguing. Come on. If you want to make anyone take you seriously, find some facts. And while you're at it, drop the preconceived notion that liberals are evil. Everyone is sick of that talk.

"do you know every french person?You should not generalize."


do i know saddam? by your logic, id have to know saddam to tell whetether or not he is evil or not. and generalization is not a bad thing if its the truth about teh majority. the country supports bush. thats a genralization. but, by and large, its the truth.
do you know bush? well then how can you say he is an idiot with a low IQ if you dont know him?

"Lots do, but I think they have every right to after how we reacted when they didn't support Bush's stupid war."


after all of this time you have yet to prove that this war is stupid. you are against it becvcause you dont want to see him suceed. you are blindedby your own hatred for this man.

"Oh and the "snobby people" thing, well I could say that lots of americans are full of themselves(and I'm american). "

hehehe. you know what the world is coming to when Americans are compard to the french as snobbier. fact is , the people of America are some of the most genorous people you'll meet. you come here and we'll show you around. we will show you a good time without thinking twice about who the person is.

"Well lots of people seem to use that excuse with Bush "he's only human, he can make mistakes""


oh maya, why are you genralizing? you shouldnt be generalizing! hmm who do i sound like? hypocrite.

"so I don't see how it's diferent with Clinton(also taking into consideration that Clinton's mistake was none of our business and Bush's mistakes are)."

oh so its ok to use that as mean to justify clinton?!