Nixon for me,because he's the only one to publicly admit what a lying,cheating,conniving,immoral,duplicitous bastard he was.

Which one wasn't a crook??

I'll vote for him.

Oliver Stone portrayed Kennedy as an angel, when in the eyes of many Amercians he was in bed with the mafia, Clinton was doing OK until he got involved in dodgy property dealings, and stuck a cigar where he shouldn't. Some people say that the whole Monica Lewinski thing was a Zionist plot to discredit Clinton after he suggested that he may cut military aid to Israel.  whatever..

Politics is crooked the world over...

I like Nixon and Reagan, both somehow managed to warm up the relations with the communist countries (Nixon with China, Reagan with Russia).

Reagan was fun, voted for Nixon because I'm one of Reed's minions

BTW I would never vote for JFK, he was a mob-guy

Clinton made the whole planet laugh when he laughed at jokes from Chirac and Yeltsin! This made for calmer politics!

He also had the whole planet laughing at this Monica bit and the whole planet crying at stupid republican-backed judges on this impeachment.

Clearly the best president since Kenedy!

Ever thought why Monica did not wash that dress if it was not to blackmail the president!

I suppose she wanted to keep a token of his affection, uh!

I love George W., but Ronald Reagan was the best.

Bill Clinton!??

Reed Lover wrote: Nixon for me,because he's the only one to publicly admit what a lying,cheating,conniving,immoral,duplicitous bastard he was.

Only because he got caught!

You mean the "I am not crook" man himself?  Frank Zappa wrote a song about him called Son of Orange County.  Pretty Funny.

Jimmy Carter was a good man but a bad president.  I remember the days of 20% inflation under him and he could do nothing.  Hostages in Iran and he could do nothing.  About the only good thing and it was pretty significant was the Camp David Accords with Israel and Egypt although it cost Anwar Sadat his life eventually.

JFK. Even though he has connections to the mob, he was a good guy. With all the stuff that happened during his time, he really could haved f*cked up the entire world. But he didn't, which is good. Clinton was good too, personal life should be left out of politics, IMO. 

Not too cause controversy or arguments or anything, but Reagan was a bad president. Take a look at his economic policies, unless you enjoy recessions. Nixon was ok, but very...odd? That's not the best word to use. He was also a criminal and lied, cheated, and tapped to get ahead. O well...

Ford didnt do anything, Carter was just there (altho he was a nice guy). LBJ was good in the begining, but then came the war. Dont care for either Bush. Again, theres the econmics of it all. And with W...it's just so bad...

You gotta love The US political history

Man With Hat wrote:  Clinton was good too, personal life should be left out of politics, IMO.

The whole reason people were pissed at him is he wouldn't clean up the cum stains on the carpet in the oval office.

gdub411 wrote: I love George W., but Ronald Reagan was the best. Bill Clinton!??

Ronald Reagan was neat but (again from an outsiders point of view) not up there in my mind except he was an ex-hollywood star and some luny tried to assassinate him!!

As for George "dubya"  - what a war hawk he is! Just like his Daddy

Crimson Prince wrote: Everyone loved him---and for good reason!!

Not everyone

Ronald Reagan ranks the highest, say what you will but he rid us of the Russians.

In addition, his "trickle down economics" worked. He understood that the strength of the U.S. is not in large corporations, it's in the small business owner and their ability to create. His policies allowed small businesses to compete (remember Microsoft began in someone's garage, it certainly wasn't in the labs of IBM). Bill Clinton simply rode on the wave of his economic policies.

Nixon runs a close second, he opened up China, created detente with the Russians (it takes an SOB to deal with an SOB), got us out of a war that JFK got us into and LBJ didn't have the intestinal fortitude to deal with. Remember, this is the same guy who ran against Barry Goldwater in '64 promising the U.S. public that he wouldn't escalate the Viet Nam fiasco. Three months after he was elected he upped the ante by 100,000 troops.

George junior comes in third, the rest of the world may not like him because he takes the unpopoular stand. Howwever the man talks the talk and walks the walk. If you think I'm wrong, ask the Democrats about the downsides of not having "a position".

What's going on in Iraq is very interesting, they finally have a democratically elected goverment after fifty years. It won't be easy but they will find their way and be better for it. Democracy is like a cancer, it mestatizes very quickly...before you know it the rest of the middle east will catch it.

Reed Lover,

Obviously you have a strong disagreement with what I posted. I'd like to hear your point of view, B_ _ _ _ _ _ _ is a bit too narrow.

Half of that post is absolutely true. so /...

All I know about Kennedy is well after the fact...except that, along with the pope, criticizing him was the best way to get lynched at my Irish family's get-togethers...

Johnson is vetoed for repeatedly pledging not to send any more US troops to Vietnam.

Nixon is vetoed for numerous obvious conspiracies against freedom in America. That and holding his dog by the ears.

Gerald Ford? He was president? I thought he was a cast member on the first few seasons of Saturday Night Live, eventually disappearing about the same time as Garrett Morris.

Jimmy Carter - okay, decent choice, if a little bland. The first president in decades who used the phrase "peace process" with any sort of authenticity.

Ronald Reagan is vetoed for claiming ignorance of Iran-Contra (whether true or not). Plus, trickle-down economics didn't work...in fact, it pretty much economically destroyed the part of the country where I was born, and it hasn't yet recovered. 

Bush Sr. would be vetoed, but the American public did that already after one pathetic term.

Bill Clinton - I'd like to stand up for him, but apart from his amiability and sax skills, I have no real esteem for the man.

GWB is vetoed for the Patriot Act alone, but also for opposing almost a century's worth of progress in civil rights and the environment. And that's just what he did when he was concerned about re-election...

gdub411 wrote: Almost Always, one can thank the previous administration for the current economy. The economy was starting to go into an upswing when Bill Clinton went into office....Walaa!...He's an economic genius. When Bill Clinton left office, the economy was slowing down for months already and in came George W. to recieve all the blame.

Sorry Gdub.. the economy started going down after Bush's first term.. not after Clinton's.  He started the roll and now he's having to deal with it his second term... G.W. earns his blames.. all by himself.

threefates wrote: gdub411 wrote: Almost Always, one can thank the previous administration for the current economy. The economy was starting to go into an upswing when Bill Clinton went into office....Walaa!...He's an economic genius. When Bill Clinton left office, the economy was slowing down for months already and in came George W. to recieve all the blame. Sorry Gdub.. the economy started going down after Bush's first term.. not after Clinton's.  He started the roll and now he's having to deal with it his second term... G.W. earns his blames.. all by himself.

 - well said Linda. That is fairly obvious even from our corner of the world!

valravennz wrote: threefates wrote: gdub411 wrote: Almost Always, one can thank the previous administration for the current economy. The economy was starting to go into an upswing when Bill Clinton went into office....Walaa!...He's an economic genius. When Bill Clinton left office, the economy was slowing down for months already and in came George W. to recieve all the blame. Sorry Gdub.. the economy started going down after Bush's first term.. not after Clinton's.  He started the roll and now he's having to deal with it his second term... G.W. earns his blames.. all by himself.  - well said Linda. That is fairly obvious even from our corner of the world!

"One definition of recession is two consecutive quarters with a declining gross domestic product. By this measure, the economy was explicitly not in recession when Bush took the oath of office on Jan. 20.

According to the Commerce Department, the economy grew (albeit slowly) in both the third quarter and the fourth quarter of 2000, by 0.6 percent and 1.1 percent, respectively. GDP did decline in the first three quarters of 2001. So Bush would have been accurate in saying that "when I was inaugurated, the economy was three weeks into the first of three consecutive quarters in which GDP declined."

So technically the recession started under Bush, but the recession was not of his doing, since GDP started to decline before he was inaugurated. Just don't be ignorant people: no president or prime minister controls the economy single-handedly... he/she can influence the economy, but that takes a long time to happen.

If you're interested, here is the US' GDP growth since 1990:

Sweetnighter wrote: Shame on both of you! You may not like Bush, and I may not like Bush either, but Bush is not to blame for the recession, at all... not its inception anyway... if his actions in office during the recession resulted in prolonging it, well thats another story, but Bush is not to blame for the recession. Should Clinton have somehow magically been able to hold a third term in office, the economic situation would be just as it is now. The Dot Com bubble grew and grew, and popped just in time to make Clinton appear to be a hero and Bush an evil villain. Oh, and lets not forget terrorists blowing buildings up.

Actually thats an article put out by the republicans.. don't believe it.!  And the dot coms had nothing to do with it... if that were so, Bush would be looking pretty good now.. have you seen the cost per share for Google lately....

Sweetnighter wrote: valravennz wrote: threefates wrote: gdub411 wrote: Almost Always, one can thank the previous administration for the current economy. The economy was starting to go into an upswing when Bill Clinton went into office....Walaa!...He's an economic genius. When Bill Clinton left office, the economy was slowing down for months already and in came George W. to recieve all the blame. Sorry Gdub.. the economy started going down after Bush's first term.. not after Clinton's.  He started the roll and now he's having to deal with it his second term... G.W. earns his blames.. all by himself.  - well said Linda. That is fairly obvious even from our corner of the world! Shame on both of you! You may not like Bush, and I may not like Bush either, but Bush is not to blame for the recession, at all... not its inception anyway... if his actions in office during the recession resulted in prolonging it, well thats another story, but Bush is not to blame for the recession. Should Clinton have somehow magically been able to hold a third term in office, the economic situation would be just as it is now. The Dot Com bubble grew and grew, and popped just in time to make Clinton appear to be a hero and Bush an evil villain. Oh, and lets not forget terrorists blowing buildings up. Here's a clip from slate magazine: "One definition of recession is two consecutive quarters with a declining gross domestic product. By this measure, the economy was explicitly not in recession when Bush took the oath of office on Jan. 20. According to the Commerce Department, the economy grew (albeit slowly) in both the third quarter and the fourth quarter of 2000, by 0.6 percent and 1.1 percent, respectively. GDP did decline in the first three quarters of 2001. So Bush would have been accurate in saying that "when I was inaugurated, the economy was three weeks into the first of three consecutive quarters in which GDP declined." So technically the recession started under Bush, but the recession was not of his doing, since GDP started to decline before he was inaugurated. Just don't be ignorant people: no president or prime minister controls the economy single-handedly... he/she can influence the economy, but that takes a long time to happen. If you're interested, here is the US' GDP growth since 1990: 1990 $28,434 1991 $28,010 1992 $28,558 1993 $28,943 1994 $29,743 1995 $30,131 1996 $30,885 1997 $31,891 1998 $32,837 1999 $33,907 2000 $34,758 2001 $34,553 2002 $34,937 2003 $35,790

Sweetnighter - I would not blame George W. single handledly for the State of the American economy. However, if you care to take another look at the figures you kindly provided above, their is a definite slowing of growth in the GDP from 2000-2002 (a 3yr period). Was this due to, do you think, to the redistribution of capital to fund the war in Iraq and against terrorism in general?? I have parents who live in Florida and have been living in the States for many years now. Though their political opinion can be somewhat biased, they give a general idea of how economic strategies affect them as ordinary citizens - like countries all over the world taxation is a big problem health and education and employment.

From my understanding the USA was certainly in a better position economically for its citizens under the Clinton administration than it is now. The impression I get is that Bush's agenda is tunnelled vision - towards ending terrorism world wide. His fellow countrymen's welfare is second to that. What right has he to interfere in the politics of other nations? He should start taking a closer look at what is happening in his own backyard.

BTW Bill Clinton was/is a highly intelligent and motivational speaker and diplomat. I have yet to see George Bush jnr show such strengths with out being propped up by "spin-doctors".

Nice to see a lot of healthy debate on the subject. Just to clarify a few things.

1) Trickle down economics was designed to help the small and medium business owner to be competitive. Major corporations in the U.S. account for less than a quarter of the employment. The real movers of the economy is and always will be the small entrepreneur.

2) The dot.com meltdown was definitely a factor in the economic recession. All you have to do is refer to the capital flight from banks (savings accounts) towards mutual funds as well as the Dow surpassing 14,000 in 1999 to understand this. Investors flocked to buy up technology shares without understanding the economics of the internet. The fact that Google commands the price it has today is a clear example that people never learn. 

As a matter of fact, we are probably due another meltdown in the mortgage market (specifically on either coasts) due to speculation. Consumers are purchasing homes as an investment alternative to the stock market (it's like drugs, once you get used to double digit returns you can't quit). 

3) 9/11 cannot be downplayed enough for the economic and psychological effect it had over this nation. The fact that we have recovered in such a short time is nothing short of amazing.

Someone mentioned Bush's tunnel vision concerning the war on terrorism and his lack of focus concerning the plight of his own citizens.

Fact number one:

We face a greater danger today than during the cold war. At least then, we operated under the premise of mutually assured destruction. Neither the U.S. or Russia wanted that so it never came to be. Today however we face a highly organized and determined terrorist organization that uses religious zeal as it's source of motivation. The U.S. can fully expect a nuclear device to be detonated in a major metropolis within the next five years (ie. New York). To think that this won't happen is unrealistic. With that in mind, I think it's our business to meddle into any country.  

Fact number two

President Bush addressed the nation two nights ago to discuss revamping Social Security, which by the way will be bankrupt by 2042. His plan is simple and based upon in part by the same social security plan Chile instituted back in the late eighties. Today Chileans have a robust pension plan which actually provides a rate of return of 19% (try getting that at the bank) to secondary market investors. 

Fact number three

The economic downturn began during the Clinton administration, to be more precise check out the Dow Jones indices for April 2000. Thats seven months prior to the election and nine months prior to Bush's inauguration.

gleam wrote: Nice to see a lot of healthy debate on the subject. Just to clarify a few things. 1) Trickle down economics was designed to help the small and medium business owner to be competitive. Major corporations in the U.S. account for less than a quarter of the employment. The real movers of the economy is and always will be the small entrepreneur. 2) The dot.com meltdown was definitely a factor in the economic recession. All you have to do is refer to the capital flight from banks (savings accounts) towards mutual funds as well as the Dow surpassing 14,000 in 1999 to understand this. Investors flocked to buy up technology shares without understanding the economics of the internet. The fact that Google commands the price it has today is a clear example that people never learn.  As a matter of fact, we are probably due another meltdown in the mortgage market (specifically on either coasts) due to speculation. Consumers are purchasing homes as an investment alternative to the stock market (it's like drugs, once you get used to double digit returns you can't quit).  3) 9/11 cannot be downplayed enough for the economic and psychological effect it had over this nation. The fact that we have recovered in such a short time is nothing short of amazing. Someone mentioned Bush's tunnel vision concerning the war on terrorism and his lack of focus concerning the plight of his own citizens. Fact number one: We face a greater danger today than during the cold war. At least then, we operated under the premise of mutually assured destruction. Neither the U.S. or Russia wanted that so it never came to be. Today however we face a highly organized and determined terrorist organization that uses religious zeal as it's source of motivation. The U.S. can fully expect a nuclear device to be detonated in a major metropolis within the next five years (ie. New York). To think that this won't happen is unrealistic. With that in mind, I think it's our business to meddle into any country.   Fact number two President Bush addressed the nation two nights ago to discuss revamping Social Security, which by the way will be bankrupt by 2042. His plan is simple and based upon in part by the same social security plan Chile instituted back in the late eighties. Today Chileans have a robust pension plan which actually provides a rate of return of 19% (try getting that at the bank) to secondary market investors.  Fact number three The economic downturn began during the Clinton administration, to be more precise check out the Dow Jones indices for April 2000. Thats seven months prior to the election and nine months prior to Bush's inauguration.

Response:

1) Not desputing that. What i saying is that, although the short term effects of the policy is good, the long term outcome is quite the opposite.

2) I agree

3) I don't know if i would use the word amazing, but it is good. But, again, long term effects. That is really the problem here.

In response to your facts, i agree on them all. But just because it began in Clinton reign, doesn't mean Bush couldn't have fixed it, or that that it caused all the economic problems that we're facing.

Also, i love how SS is going to run out just in time for me to get some.  And i hope we have the success that Chile has had. 

Sweetnighter wrote: Hahahaha... check out this obscene graph of the UK's debt since 1855:

and your point is.......?

I don't have a favourite 1960s + president, but if I had to, I'd go with LBJ. I think LBJ because he brough about some amazing policies, like Medcare and Medicaid and passed most of Kenndy's New Frontier ideas that were never passed when he was still around.

DallasBryan wrote: It is amazing that at this time in the poll that Bill Clinton has 14 votes, Reagan has 9 and both Bushes have 0. HILARY for President and Bill VP! Makes you wonder who is really voting?

 - Now having Hilary as President would be interesting to say the least. She is one tough lady. But do you think she will stand for nomination.??? To throw another goldfish among the cats, what about Condalesa Rice?? She says she is not interested in standing for President. However, I feel she is being groomed for that position by the spin doctors. Now these two ladies going head to head would make for some very interesting politics - IMHO.

Clinton on 'Dark side of the moon' one for the good old days...

Just leaving '73 'Dark side' sessions with hillary

Pakish: One good point you mentioned the war on Iraq being based around energy and I presume you mean that country's rich oil reserves. However, that is only part of the reason for going to war with Iraq. The country that controls the worlds largest resource of oil is going to be a threat to those less fortunate. IMO it is conspiratorial that war is declared on a country that is known to shelter and produce terrorists. Coincidentally, Iraq has very large oil reserves which would be an asset for a country like the US to have some control over. It would be an advantage for the US to have some influence either direct or indirect on the management of the oil reserves. That would make the US even more powerful in the eyes of the world than it does already.

Which leads me to another point. The Kyoto Treaty. It would therefore stand to reason why the US would not be a signatory of this treaty - (basically the treaty is centred around the reduction of polluting the worlds natural resources) - if it did not have some interest in increasing its control over the worlds oil resources.

From my country's point of view this is not a good stance by the US. The Bush administration is clearly only interested in the politics of world power as opposed to environmental issues. The survival of the human race is clearly in a more precarious position if this power policy persists. We can live without oil - there are other resources being scientifically experimented with eg: wind, sun and ocean water. But we can not survive if the environment we depend on is destroyed - all for the mad ambitions of "Hawk" leaning politicians.

Yes - crack down on terrorism. Subdue the infidels so to speak. But who is the terrorist when it comes to the war against the human race?

Pakish,

just a few observations, your ranting and in many instances incoherent. However, the last observation is ludicrous.

Most important, I wouldn't browbeat anyone if I were in your place. If you want to criticize look towards your own country's heritage. Mexico hasn't had a legal election...ever! Wait, I take that back, Fox was democratically elected (a first in the country). However the opposition has ensured that he doesn't change the status quo of graft and corruption.

You mentioned the subject of oppresion, why don't we discuss the people of Chiapas and your goverment's policy towards them. Genocide comes to mind.

If the U.S. is as evil as you say, why are there in excess of 8 million illegal Mexicans living here. I'll wager that it is because they can earn a decent living, raising their children in a modicum of safety knowing that they will have a better life than their parents had.

Lets not forget the billions upon billions of dollars this country has put into medical supplies and assistance in rebuilding after all the hurricanes, earthquakes and other nature disasters that have hit Mexico and Latin America throughtout the years.  And thats just a small percentage of what we've done for the area is other ways. 

Pakish, I think you need a better source for information.  None of your remarks make any sense at all and I'm not referring to the language... 

James Lee wrote: gleam wrote:   Fact number one: We face a greater danger today than during the cold war. At least then, we operated under the premise of mutually assured destruction. Neither the U.S. or Russia wanted that so it never came to be. Today however we face a highly organized and determined terrorist organization that uses religious zeal as it's source of motivation. The U.S. can fully expect a nuclear device to be detonated in a major metropolis within the next five years (ie. New York). To think that this won't happen is unrealistic. With that in mind, I think it's our business to meddle into any country. Ugh, I can't go along with that one. For one thing, the fear during the cold was very real- nobody was all that comforted by mutually assured destruction theories. The main reason we didn't kill each other was that our hysteria never completely overcame our sense of self-preservation...more to do with basic human nature than political posturing. For another thing, what leads you to the conclusion that we can indeed expect a nuclear attack? The US has always had enemies with the resources, determination, and capabilities...that's not necessarily an excuse to go out and exterminate all potential threats, even if we were able to accurately identify them (though it's just as compelling as the 'evidence' that supported our initial incursion).   But yeah, we're having a good discussion- I'm as surprised as anyone!

James,

My rationale for this is based on the fact that either country had control over their stockpiles. As insane as the arms race was, we had accountability. That doesn't exist today with the breakaway states that once made up Russia.

It may sound like the script of a Van Damme movie, however there is the potential for an unscrupulous goverment official to sell a nuke to a terrorist group. You only have to go as far as the house arrest of A.H. Khan in Pakistan. The man stole nuclear designs from Holland, helped Pakistan build a bomb and then traded the technology to countries such as North Korea and Libya.

Finally, your right in saying that we have always faced countries with the potential to do this. However my argument goes back to accountability. These countries know that our response would be swift and overwhelming. However, how do you deal with an individual with no country, only a twisted ideal? 

That's a good point- as much as cold war era US propaganda characterized the Russkies as out-of-control madmen bent on world domination, the truth is that the USSR was probably less driven by uncompromizing communist ideology as they were by the simple desire to be a world power. What seemed to be an embracing of communism was little more than the latest identity crisis for a nation that has struggled with national self-doubt and a transitory, superficial glorification of Western ideals for centuries. Once the uprising was over, very little 'devotion' to communist ideals motivated the USSR's expansionist activities.

On the other hand, it seems that the religious ideology behind the bulk of current terrorist activity doesn't preclude total annihilation as a reasonable means to their ends. If I was convinced that both sides were composed of sane human beings with a difference of opinion (or a squabble over resources, the classic motivation for war), I'd probably feel safer...but at the core of the conflict is an ideological fanaticism and intolerance which amounts to chronic temporary insanity.

Our own version of this is an amalgam of democratic ideals, christian fundamentalism, and cultural homogenization (not to mention plain old greed). It's just so hard for us to believe that everybody doesn't WANT to be American.

But my own ideological blind spot is reason and compassion...I have to believe that both are always preferable to violence (except in cases of immediate self-defense). If I didn't believe this, then I'd have to conclude that the only thing that keeps human beings from a constant state of destructive chaos is the threat of organized, institutional violence.

Pakish,

Please clarify your thread, it's hard to follow but this is the best I can extract.

1) Your first sentence refers to the deaths in Chiapas. For the record there were 145 goverment reported deaths in 1993 alone, the Zapatistas claim closer to 1,000. Point aside, 15,000 inhabitants died from simple starvation in 1994. There are no indications that this number nor the rate have abated.

2) In reference to the 1 million deaths in Viet Nam, are you referreing to the second Indo Chinese war?

If so, the number is closer to 1.5 million combatants and 1.5 million civilian population that perished during the conflict. A conflict of which the U.S. was requested to intervene after the North Viet Namese invaded the south in an attempt to install a communist regime. you also need to mention the 58,000 Americans who lost their life doing so. let's not forget the 500,000 Viet Namese who were killed after the war in the reindoctrination camps. The U.S. however was no longer there when that occured.

3) In reference to El Salvador, are you referring to the Reformist coup of '79 concerning the 200,000 dead? If so, you must be referring to the campaign between the military "junta" and leftists guerrilas armed by Ortega's communist regime in Nicaragua. However, I fail to see the U.S. involvement other than the "Iran Contra" arms for sale money laundering scheme. The U.S. had no military involvement.

3) In reference to the Iraqi body count of more than 200,000, you are exagerating. The civilian body count to date (this week) puts it at a minimum of 21,239 and a maximum of 24,106. A tragedy for sure, however I would like to point out that the primary cause of these deaths are due to insurgent activity. Your comment would seem to indicate that these deaths are the direct result of the U.S. armed forces.

Concerning, the website, I will take a look at it (in detail). In the meantime, I recommend you gather your facts in an orderly and concise manner before you engage in debate. 

Acuardate que la clave para el exito es estar bien preparado.

Saludos