What does this country (America) need?

[Milkyway!]

Throughout my lifetime I've heard many many adults say "We need another FDR, JFK, George Washington, basically a present politician to stand up, and take on the shoes of the past politicial icons we've come to know as our "Greatest Leaders of All Time."

So basically, what I'm trying to ask, is what does this country (America) Need?

I say we need an Alexander Hamilton, the guy was a financial genius. We need a man like him, to stand up and put our economical debts into a large bag, and just throw them away. Just as he did after the American Revolution.

I really love government, and history, but I must admit. I only know my meat and potatoes, I don't really get into the vegitables, soup, let alone the powders in my soup.

So what type of political icon do you think we need?

 

[FromTheSouth]

Throughout my lifetime I've heard many many adults say "We need another FDR, JFK, George Washington, basically a present politician to stand up, and take on the shoes of the past politicial icons we've come to know as our "Greatest Leaders of All Time."

I'm not a big FDR fan. I'm more of a Reagan guy. The economy saw unprecedented growth due to Reagan's policies. He brought the nation together. More on this later.

So basically, what I'm trying to ask, is what does this country (America) Need?

I say we need an Alexander Hamilton, the guy was a financial genius. We need a man like him, to stand up and put our economical debts into a large bag, and just throw them away. Just as he did after the American Revolution.

Alexander Hamilton only had to balance the budget for a couple hundred thousand people that didn't live in a welfare state.

I really love government, and history, but I must admit. I only know my meat and potatoes, I don't really get into the vegitables, soup, let alone the powders in my soup.

I don't know what this means.

So what type of political icon do you think we need?

We need a true uniter. Since 1994, this nation has split into two distinct groups. Too often conservatives are pitted against liberals. We call each other baby killers and fascists. We attack each other on issues that should not be part of the public debate. You can't blame one side more than the other, because one, that would feed the beast even more, and two, both sides are to blame.

I am known on here for being a conservative, and standing up for conservative values. That's just who I am. When it is convenient for me in a debate, I can easily blame liberals, as a whole, for a problem. The problem isn't the Democratic party. It is necessary for balance. The true definitions of the parties are simple. The Republican Party is of the republic. We are supposed to be protect the nation as a whole. This is why we are strong on defense, limiting government, etc. The Deomocratic Party is for the democracy, or the people. It exists to regulate welfare, entitlements, etc. When in conflict, I side with the good of the nation, and others side with the good of the people. This is fine. This is how we should decide disputes. This is the purpose of the two party system.

The government, however, has lost it's direction. Instead of finding common ground, and settling disputes in the manner described above, the goal has turned into beating the other side. Both sides use tactics that are often dirty, misrepresent each other's side, and straight up lie when convenient. I am guilty of this as much as anyone.

In order to solve this problem, this nation needs someone who can bring this nation together. I truly think that Bill Clinton could have been this guy in a different environment. Economically, he was a conservative. The growth under him was due to a Laissez-faire economic approach. There wasn't much regulation under Clinton, small business was allowed to flourished, large corporations benefitted under his Friedman-style approach, and entrepreneurship was not only encouraged, but supported. He gave control of welfare to the states, giving them federal funds to administer. Under the tenth amendment, this is Constitutionally perfect. The government exists to protect the state and regulate interstate trade. Clinton, economically, was good for this nation. He saw the benefits of Reaganomics coming to fruition, but he didn't stand in the way, and initiative like NAFTA only helped to further the progress the economy was gaining. Socially, he was a bit of a liberal. He worked to integrate the army. Don't ask, don't tell is looked at as a homophobic policy, however, it was better than what was there before, and a giant compromise, that at the time, was heralded as a bipartisan success. This country, more than any other is evolving. A quick rise to power, combined with an evolving society makes this country harder to run that any other. I think Clinton tapped into the social evolution of the US better than anyone ever. I didn't agree with everything he did, and I think he jumped the gun on giving China the Most Favored Nation trading status. I think a lot of our problems now can be traced back to that moment in 1994. But, beyond that, and the whole obstruction of justice thing, I am a pretty big fan of Bill Clinton. He is the example that morals and values do not always define a politician. I wouldn't call him a Democrat, as much as I would a libertarian, and this is why I liked him.

I don't see anyone in the political landscape that can be defined as a uniter right now. Bill Frist would have been my guy. He was a Senator, who happened to be one of the best heart surgeons in the country. His compassion showed in his voting record. He was a fiscally responsible conservative in a time when that just disappeared.

Barack Obama ran as a uniter, but when I look at his appointments, his czars, I don't see it. George Bush ran as a uniter, but he polarized this nation like never before. There are no more statesmen, Thomas Jefferson is dead and gone, James Madison ain't walking through that door, with apologies to Rick Pitino. The problem is that people who could unite the nation are often thrust onto TV to respond to the State of the Union. Bobby Jindal was thought of as someone who could unite the nation, but he was put on after Obama's first address to the nation, gave a hard right speech, and has disappeared into the back ground.

I hope John Cornyn runs in 2012. He is a Senator from Texas. He is currently on the judiciary committee, and from the three Supreme Court hearings I have watched, has been fair, polite, and direct with all of his questioning. He never tried to trap Justice Sotomayor. He asked hard question of Roberts and Alito. Unlike all the other partisans on the committee, I don't think you would have known he was a Republican without the little (R) next to his name. His voting record represents his views, not the views of the party. He is not a party line voter, and has voted for the interests of Texans, which is his job. This is why the recession isn't nearly as bad here as it is other places, even though we have as many financial jobs as any other state beyond New York. He votes in favor of big oil and big technology. He votes in favor of research ad development. He votes for science as often as he votes for values. He sees God and Galileo as partners in understanding, and is perhaps what this nation needs. The problem is, he will never get the RNC behind him, because he is a Reagan Republican, not a "Compassionate Conservative." You'll never hear him call anyone a baby killer. You'll always hear him condemn WTO protesters. He is even minded and fair. This is what the nation needs.

 

[X]

I'm not a big FDR fan. I'm more of a Reagan guy. The economy saw unprecedented growth due to Reagan's policies. He brought the nation together. More on this later.

Reagan? Sigh. Unbelievable the praise that man gets. For what? What should we love him for again? Was it the Iran-Contra affair? Was it the CIA funding and training Al Qaeda? Was it when we were selling weapons to both Iraq and Iran, and letting them kill each other by the thousands? Was it Grenada? Was it the MASSIVE largening of the War on Drugs, which has failed so badly it's just downright laughable? Seriously, what the fuck did Reagan do that was so special, I really want to know. Lower the unemployment rate by 2 percentage points? Woo-ee, give that man the fucking Nobel Peace Prize!

Reagan is the most overrated President to ever live, I can't believe how much that man is adored by conservatives. The man was a terrible President.

What does America need right now? Change. REAL change. And by that I mean a third party. For me to address every thing that America needed, I'd be here writing a novel. And if I'm going to write a novel, I want to get paid for it damnit.

 

[FromTheSouth]

X, no President is perfect. I like Reagan because of economic policy. This nation's economy grew exponentially during his term and due to his policies post term.

I like Reagan because he and Pope JP2 destroyed Communism and Soviet expansion across Europe. He showed the limits by which a Communist nation can grow. The Soviet Union had to continue gaining territory in order to protect and feed itself. When it ran into the borders of capitalism, empowered electorates were able to keep it from advancing. The Soviet Union was a powerhouse as it gained people, and therefore tax revenue. When there were no more people to gain, the economy stagnated. Empowered people in capitalist nations can create wealth, and therefore grow a tax base. This was the true lesson of "peace through strength." A strong US economy funded a strong military. The problem is that it has continued to grow when there is no one even close to being able to challenge us.

Funding al-quaeda looks bad now, but at the time, they were no threat. The thought was that if we help them beat the Soviets, we could make in roads into a part of the world that the west has been shut out of for thousands of years. We were double crossed. Reagan is only guilty of being fooled.

Iran Contra was bad. No excuses there. We were trying to stop Sadaam Hussein, and empowered worse people. Our bad.

But, you mention none of his successes. He defeated communism, he freed the hostages.

The War on Drugs is a failure, true. But, it is in the best interest of the nation to stop crack use. It is in the interest of the nation to keep drugs out of the high schools. Adults doing adult things is one thing, but I am not in favor of access to drugs for high school kids. And this is from someone who used to buy acid in the hallways (three drops on a piece of juicy fruit for $5, don't ever go to football practice frying.) I think 18 is a pretty good brightline for making these decision. Reagan's war on drugs was fought in the schools and against crack. I don't think that this is as bad as some would make it. Besides, it was Nancy's pet project more than the President's.

If he is guilty of anything, it is bringing evangelism into politics. But like most things, evangelism has been bastardized into a control measure as opposed to a guiding light. I know you think values have no place in politics, but when the logic and reasoning is strong on both sides, values and morals are a pretty good measure of what policies are warranted.

Finally, he was a uniter. We did have a common enemy under Reagan, and he fought this enemy with the good of everyone in mind. Not everything he did was successful, but you can't deny that he performed his main duty admirably, keeping us safe and alive.

 

[X]

X, no President is perfect. I like Reagan because of economic policy. This nation's economy grew exponentially during his term and due to his policies post term.

There's more to being a successful president than being economically successful in my opinion. I feel that's the only area that conservatives have a leg to stand on when praising the man.

Funding al-quaeda looks bad now, but at the time, they were no threat. The thought was that if we help them beat the Soviets, we could make in roads into a part of the world that the west has been shut out of for thousands of years. We were double crossed. Reagan is only guilty of being fooled.

But that wasn't the thought at all FTS. We funded and trained Al-Qaeda not to get us into Afghanistan, but to keep the Soviets out. As soon as the war was over, we packed up our bags, said "Have fun on your own!" to Al-Qaeda and the country of Afghanistan, and created a vacuum which led to Al-Qaeda's takeover of the country and the rise of the Taliban. It can all be linked back to Reagan's foolish policies.

Iran Contra was bad. No excuses there. We were trying to stop Sadaam Hussein, and empowered worse people. Our bad.

It was more than bad, it was despicable. I'm sorry, but expanding and enlarging the "Drug War" in America while simultaneously trafficking cocaine into Central America is not only insanely hypocritical, it's disgraceful any way you look at it. That's the definition of corruption. Reagan's connection to Iran-Contra is enough for me to definitively say the man was a poor leader.

But, you mention none of his successes. He defeated communism, he freed the hostages.

Please, Reagan didn't defeat communism. Communism defeated itself.

The War on Drugs is a failure, true. But, it is in the best interest of the nation to stop crack use.

Yes, it is. Which is why we need to switch to a drug policy similar to that of the Netherlands, which have proven to result in much lower drug rates than those in the US in basically every category.

We need to treat drug addiction as what it is; an illness. Not punish them with prison.

If he is guilty of anything, it is bringing evangelism into politics. But like most things, evangelism has been bastardized into a control measure as opposed to a guiding light. I know you think values have no place in politics, but when the logic and reasoning is strong on both sides, values and morals are a pretty good measure of what policies are warranted.

You're right, I'm completely against evangelism. Having a religion is fine. Keep it the fuck away from your political decisions. It's really not that difficult.

Finally, he was a uniter. We did have a common enemy under Reagan, and he fought this enemy with the good of everyone in mind. Not everything he did was successful, but you can't deny that he performed his main duty admirably, keeping us safe and alive.

If keeping us safe and alive is the only criteria that a President must succeed in, that makes basically every President to have ever served successful. Which obviously isn't the case.

Sorry, I simply can't stand Reagan.

 

[FromTheSouth]

Yeah, Jesus to my side, Judas to the other.

That's the problem with nation. No more Moses. No one to bring us together and deliver us from the schism that grows wider by the day.

I love this country, but the politicians in it seem to want to drive us apart.

You may hate Reagan, but what he did was give real hope to the nation. When Communism started to crumble, the nation rejoiced, and with one voice praised America. When Reagan was in office, it wasn't as if the Republicans were in charge, it was Americans in charge. I will remember him fondly.

 

[Goo Punch]

Quite frankly, what this country needs is to be taken down a peg. And it will happen, probally not in the near future, but someday. Eventually we're gonna pick a fight with someone we underestimate and lose. Only then will we stop being the world's bully and focus on our own problems.

 

[Tastycles]

In a word, isolationism.

Its interesting to see in this thread that Reagan has been brought up. I'm not really interested in the economy of the US in the 1980s, to be honest with you, so I'm not going to comment on that. What I will say is that I 100% disagree that he was instrumental in bringing down communism, the Pope and the obvious flaws as well as the integrity of Mikhail Gorbachev can be thanked for that. Any president would have and could have done what he did.

Anyway, I think the more salient point that was brought up was the number of conflicts the US has gotten into over time. I chose to look into this a bit more, so I looked at all major US engagements since 1945, and I found that the vast majority of them either ended up being a complete failure (Bay of Pigs), made the people hate America (Iran-Iraq war), or make the area less stable (central America). In Vietnam, you managed to acheive all three in three different countries, which is no mean feat.

The reason that you are able to seriously (though mistakenly, as we have seen) consider yourselves the greatest nation on earth and the reason you are the richest and most powerful is essentially because unlike every other developed country (and by association their former colonies) you didn't get bogged down in either war before you had to. Its sad, but true, that had the US left Afghanistan alone in the first place, there wouldn't be a Taliban and there wouldn't have been a 9/11. The US needs to look after number one again, because that has always come with its greatest successes historically.

Which brings me back to Ronald Reagan. FTS, you said, and I don't quote, that Reagan oversaw the biggest growth in the US economy ever. I believe that's true, and its important to understand that the 1980s was the only decade out of the last 7 where you have fought a proper all out war. There's something in that, trust me.

 

[Spaceman Spif]

This country needs a lot of things. First off it needs a government who is worried about internal issues and fixing what is wrong in out country first, rather than worrying about every other country. I don't mind helping others that need it, not at all, but I would like to see us take a step back with helping other countries so much and concentrate on our own troubles.

We need to work on our trade agreements, to make them more mutually agreeable instead of pretty one sided. We need to work on growing our own grains, fruits and vegaatables for our own country instead of shipping more of it out and getting less back in return, it's odd. We need to make sure those going hungry and living on the streets here are taken care of first, then we can feed and shelter those in other countries.

We need to work on out immigration laws and statutes. We need to concentrate more on our citizens than those who aren't. I'm not trying to be spiteful, but the citizens need to be taken care of first.

We need a government that is worried about our issues and not other countries issues. I love our country, I love our people, whether they be red, brown, black, white, purple or green. I love our freedoms, I love out rights. I want our government to worry about these things, not something going on, on the other side of the world. That's what America needs. We need to be more self-sufficent and self-supporting.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

Milkyway!, not to get on your case here like some other people have, but John Kennedy was one of the worst presidents America ever had. Barack Obama might as well be an honorary member of the Kennedy family, because he's pretty much JFK, Jr.

What America needs is a transactional, rather than a transformational, leader. One thing Americans seem to be very susceptible to is charisma. Unfortunately, very often nothing much lies behind the charisma of political leaders. America needs leaders that are more worried about being head of government rather than head of state. I usually vote Republican, but I'd love to have someone like a Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton in the office right now. Maybe Obama can do something magical in the time he has left, but something tells me that, in the end, "Change" will be nothing more than a catchy campaign phrase.

 

[X]

Milkyway!, not to get on your case here like some other people have, but John Kennedy was one of the worst presidents America ever had. Barack Obama might as well be an honorary member of the Kennedy family, because he's pretty much JFK, Jr.

Please explain to me two things TDigle.

1) What makes John Kennedy one of the worst presidents of all time (should be a good one).

2) How Barack Obama's term thus far compares to JFK's.

What America needs is a transactional, rather than a transformational, leader. One thing Americans seem to be very susceptible to is charisma. Unfortunately, very often nothing much lies behind the charisma of political leaders. America needs leaders that are more worried about being head of government rather than head of state. I usually vote Republican, but I'd love to have someone like a Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton in the office right now. Maybe Obama can do something magical in the time he has left, but something tells me that, in the end, "Change" will be nothing more than a catchy campaign phrase.

So, let me get this straight...you call JFK one of our worst presidents ever, and than praise Jimmy fucking Carter. That about the gist of it? That's a riot.

What this country needs right now, among many, many other things, is to get the hell out of the Middle East. We're trying to do that in Iraq right now, but things are still tough. We've increased our troops and spending in Afghanistan, and recently Iraq's death rate spiked upwards again after months and months of declining numbers. We need to hurry up and finish the damn job in Iraq, and do the same in Afghanistan. The more time we spend over there, the less time and money we have to focus on ourselves. Get us out of the Middle East, and then we can begin worrying about other issues.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

Please explain to me two things TDigle.

1) What makes John Kennedy one of the worst presidents of all time (should be a good one).

2) How Barack Obama's term thus far compares to JFK's.

1) Why was he such a good president? Name one thing he did that we can say he initiated that was successful. Civil rights movement? Started before him; he only had the benefit of signing into law legislation that would have been made whether or not he would have been President. Everything else that I can think of was just a big fuck-up on his part. Bay Of Pigs? Huge disaster, and he should have been ashamed because of that. Cuba Missile Crisis? Could have easily been handled by anyone in the office. Kennedy was nothing but a bunch of words, just as Obama is currently. I'll give Obama one thing though: he has engaged in client politics quite a bit.

2) It's been about 80% words, and about 20% substance.

So, let me get this straight...you call JFK one of our worst presidents ever, and than praise Jimmy fucking Carter. That about the gist of it? That's a riot.

Jimmy Carter was probably the smartest President we ever had in office. No one that I can think of has ever had his brain power. He had a few flaws (too obsessed with minutiae and too quick to blame the people themselves for America's problems), but, with the right people by his side, he'd be the perfect President today.

 

[X]

1) Why was he such a good president? Name one thing he did that we can say he initiated that was successful.

The Peace Corps. There you go. Want some more? The Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, the New Frontier policies, NASA, the civil rights movement. Should I continue?

Civil rights movement? Started before him; he only had the benefit of signing into law legislation that would have been made whether or not he would have been President.

That's like saying "Oh Lincoln wasn't a good president, anyone could have come up with the Emancipation Proclamation". Well, JFK did it. You're really going to argue about JFK's impact and importance to the civil rights movement?

Everything else that I can think of was just a big fuck-up on his part. Bay Of Pigs? Huge disaster, and he should have been ashamed because of that.

You mean the Bay of the Pigs that was put into motion and started by Dwight Eisenhower and not John F. Kennedy? That Bay of Pigs? The one that was entirely handled by the CIA, and that JFK had almost no involvement in whatsoever? That Bay of Pigs?

The Bay of Pigs was going to happen with or without Kennedy or his approval.

Cuba Missile Crisis? Could have easily been handled by anyone in the office.

You've got to be fucking kidding me. You think George W. Bush would have handled that situation the same way? Richard Nixon? Seriously? What an asinine statement. JFK helped avoid a nuclear holocaust. Yeah, what a shit president he was.

Kennedy was nothing but a bunch of words, just as Obama is currently. I'll give Obama one thing though: he has engaged in client politics quite a bit.

Yes, nevermind all of the legislation and policies he started, nevermind the Peace Corps, nevermind all of that, yeah he did nothing TDigs, you're right.

Since you clearly haven't taken the time to learn much about Kennedy's administration, here you go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Frontier

Yeah, what a dick. He did absolutely nothing for this country!

2) It's been about 80% words, and about 20% substance.

Yes, because clearly someone who's been in office for 8 months should be deemed a failure already. That's not jumping the gun at all.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

The Peace Corps. There you go. Want some more? The Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, the New Frontier policies, NASA, the civil rights movement. Should I continue?



That's like saying "Oh Lincoln wasn't a good president, anyone could have come up with the Emancipation Proclamation". Well, JFK did it. You're really going to argue about JFK's impact and importance to the civil rights movement?

Peace Corps and NASA...I'll give him NASA, but give me break on the Peace Corps, an organization for white, rich kids who don't know what they want to do with their lives. Exactly how many lives does the Peace Corps touch exactly? Shit, you act as if this organization is singular in how many people it helps around the world. Every Western, industrialized nation has something similar to a Peace Corps. it isn't as if Kennedy's imagination needed to stretched to think that one up.

And, really, you really want to bring in Lincoln as a comparison point, a man who is considered by many academic polls to be the second greatest President of all time? Kennedy was nowhere near as instrumental in the Civil Rights Movement as you claim. Yes, I still do believe that the legislation would have been passed had he not been in office. Kennedy was in no way, shape, or form absolutely necessary to the Civil Rights movement, although public opinion would have you believe otherwise.

You mean the Bay of the Pigs that was put into motion and started by Dwight Eisenhower and not John F. Kennedy? That Bay of Pigs? The one that was entirely handled by the CIA, and that JFK had almost no involvement in whatsoever? That Bay of Pigs?

The Bay of Pigs was going to happen with or without Kennedy or his approval.

Looks like someone's been reading Don DeLillo's Libra. Kennedy played a huge part in the Bay of Pigs, and his dislike of Communism is well-documented. You act as if he was totally passive and resigned to the invasion...I think not.

You've got to be fucking kidding me. You think George W. Bush would have handled that situation the same way? Richard Nixon? Seriously? What an asinine statement. JFK helped avoid a nuclear holocaust. Yeah, what a shit president he was.

The ending of the Cuban Missile Crisis had to do with the fear of Mutually Assured Destruction, not with the great sense of diplomacy you think Kennedy had. Foreign policy was never a strong point for Kennedy.

Yes, nevermind all of the legislation and policies he started, nevermind the Peace Corps, nevermind all of that, yeah he did nothing TDigs, you're right.

Since you clearly haven't taken the time to learn much about Kennedy's administration, here you go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Frontier

Yeah, what a dick. He did absolutely nothing for this country!

Yeah, I clearly haven't had time to read about Kennedy's presidency, seeing as how I like to stay away from Wikipedia and read such books as Thomas Reeves' A Question Of Character: A Life Of John F. Kennedy and Seymour M. Hersh's The Dark Side Of Camelot. Yeah, shame on me for my ignorance of an Internet resource that can be edited by anyone .

Yes, because clearly someone who's been in office for 8 months should be deemed a failure already. That's not jumping the gun at all.

Hmmm...did Obama win the 2008 election decisively? Wouldn't that have given him a pretty big mandate and a lot of political capital to work with during his honeymoon period? What happened?

 

[X]

Peace Corps and NASA...I'll give him NASA, but give me break on the Peace Corps, an organization for white, rich kids who don't know what they want to do with their lives. Exactly how many lives does the Peace Corps touch exactly? Shit, you act as if this organization is singular in how many people it helps around the world. Every Western, industrialized nation has something similar to a Peace Corps. it isn't as if Kennedy's imagination needed to stretched to think that one up.

What a bunch of bullshit reasons for you to try and diminish the impact that the Peace Corps has had. They help the poor and needy in third world countries. Explain to me how that is in any way a negative thing. The Peace Corps introduced the idea to the United States that national service didn't have to be exclusively military.

And, really, you really want to bring in Lincoln as a comparison point, a man who is considered by many academic polls to be the second greatest President of all time? Kennedy was nowhere near as instrumental in the Civil Rights Movement as you claim. Yes, I still do believe that the legislation would have been passed had he not been in office. Kennedy was in no way, shape, or form absolutely necessary to the Civil Rights movement, although public opinion would have you believe otherwise.

An Lincoln was in no way absolutely necessary to the end of the Civil War. But he was intelligent enough and a good enough leader to do so. Just like Kennedy was a great leader. There's a reason his speeches are remembered more than any other President in US history TDigs. He united America.

Looks like someone's been reading Don DeLillo's Libra. Kennedy played a huge part in the Bay of Pigs, and his dislike of Communism is well-documented. You act as if he was totally passive and resigned to the invasion...I think not.

Yes I know of Kennedy's dislike for Communism, but you've glazed over the most important fact of this matter; Kennedy didn't start the Bay of Pigs. Eisenhower did. The Bay of Pigs was the CIA's baby, not Kennedy's. They're the ones who planned it, who organized it, who trained the Anti-Castro insurgents, who initiated the invasion. Blame the CIA, not Kennedy.

The ending of the Cuban Missile Crisis had to do with the fear of Mutually Assured Destruction, not with the great sense of diplomacy you think Kennedy had. Foreign policy was never a strong point for Kennedy.

More excuses to try and diminish the fact that Kennedy was the man out there negotiating the end of that crisis.

Yeah, I clearly haven't had time to read about Kennedy's presidency, seeing as how I like to stay away from Wikipedia and read such books as Thomas Reeves' A Question Of Character: A Life Of John F. Kennedy and Seymour M. Hersh's The Dark Side Of Camelot. Yeah, shame on me for my ignorance of an Internet resource that can be edited by anyone .

Ah yes, the classic "Wiki isn't reliable, it can be edited by anyone!" argument that is so commonly used by people who realize their argument is shit. Always loved that one.

Don't give me that bullshit, you know god damn well Wikipedia is a reliable source, and that it's constantly moderated 24/7. Go on, try and edit something about JFK right now. Odds are it won't let you, and if it does let you and you say edited in something like "JFK invaded Poland" or something alone those lines, it'd be taken down within minutes.

You know those links at the bottom of every Wikipedia page? Yeah, those are called "sources". Don't give me the tired old bullshit argument about how if it's on Wiki it isn't true.

Hmmm...did Obama win the 2008 election decisively? Wouldn't that have given him a pretty big mandate and a lot of political capital to work with during his honeymoon period? What happened?

He's been in office for EIGHT MONTHS. Eight months! Yeah he hasn't done much of anything in that time outside of lifting the ban on stem-cell research, so what? Eight months is a long enough period in time to dismiss a man's entire presidency as a failure?

Obama has done almost nothing in his tenure, and yet he's still a much better President that Bush ever was. America is in a better position now than they were a few years ago.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

What a bunch of bullshit reasons for you to try and diminish the impact that the Peace Corps has had. They help the poor and needy in third world countries. Explain to me how that is in any way a negative thing. The Peace Corps introduced the idea to the United States that national service didn't have to be exclusively military.

Point conceded.

An Lincoln was in no way absolutely necessary to the end of the Civil War. But he was intelligent enough and a good enough leader to do so. Just like Kennedy was a great leader. There's a reason his speeches are remembered more than any other President in US history TDigs. He united America.

And this gets right back to my point about how charisma clouds people's judgment. Speeches are good and all if they are used as stopgaps, but people should stop deluding themselves into thinking that they make a difference in the long-run. Hell, Bush gave an excellent speech after 9/11, and he did a great job uniting America for the time being. But, did he capitalize on that speech? That's open for debate. Why should I think Kennedy any better then when his speeches were just more plentiful?

Also, that's fine with me if it's a fact that Lincoln wasn't necessary for the Civil War's end, as it does nothing to counter my previous claim that Kennedy was not integral to the Civil Rights Movement.

Yes I know of Kennedy's dislike for Communism, but you've glazed over the most important fact of this matter; Kennedy didn't start the Bay of Pigs. Eisenhower did. The Bay of Pigs was the CIA's baby, not Kennedy's. They're the ones who planned it, who organized it, who trained the Anti-Castro insurgents, who initiated the invasion. Blame the CIA, not Kennedy.

I'll gladly not blame Kennedy, because then it means I can blame him for the Vietnam War. He was the one who mobilized troops in that war, after all.

More excuses to try and diminish the fact that Kennedy was the man out there negotiating the end of that crisis.

They're not excuses, they're meant to be claims that bolster my argument that there was nothing particularly special about Kennedy that ended the Crisis.

Ah yes, the classic "Wiki isn't reliable, it can be edited by anyone!" argument that is so commonly used by people who realize their argument is shit. Always loved that one.

Don't give me that bullshit, you know god damn well Wikipedia is a reliable source, and that it's constantly moderated 24/7. Go on, try and edit something about JFK right now. Odds are it won't let you, and if it does let you and you say edited in something like "JFK invaded Poland" or something alone those lines, it'd be taken down within minutes.

You know those links at the bottom of every Wikipedia page? Yeah, those are called "sources". Don't give me the tired old bullshit argument about how if it's on Wiki it isn't true.

Point conceded. I don't see how not reading Wikipedia diminishes the credibility of my arguments, though. By the way, there used to be a "criticisms of Kennedy" section in his wikipedia page...what happened to that?

He's been in office for EIGHT MONTHS. Eight months! Yeah he hasn't done much of anything in that time outside of lifting the ban on stem-cell research, so what? Eight months is a long enough period in time to dismiss a man's entire presidency as a failure?

Obama has done almost nothing in his tenure, and yet he's still a much better President that Bush ever was. America is in a better position now than they were a few years ago.

This still leaves open the question of how did a man with a majority in both congressional houses and an overwhelming electoral victory fail to do anything with his honeymoon period?

 

[Milkyway!]

Alexander Hamilton only had to balance the budget for a couple hundred thousand people that didn't live in a welfare state.

Still doesn't mean the guy wasn't a financial genius, especially for his day and age.

That's the problem with nation. No more Moses. No one to bring us together and deliver us from the schism that grows wider by the day.

So basically, you're saying we need a Henry Clay, correct? The guy is known as The Great Compramiser. Allthroughout the 1800's up until he died the man litterally was the superglue of this country. When Jackson was ready to raise an army to litterally decimate South Carolina and hang John C Calhoun. Who came and saved the day? Thats right, Henry Clay with the Compromise of 1833.

 

[FromTheSouth]

In the same manner that you blame Reagan for Afghanistan, we can blame Kennedy for Vietnam. You say that if he just would have kept his nose out of it, and not fought Communism in Afghanistam, there wouldn't have been a power vacuum for Al-Quaeda and The Taliban to fill in and take control. If Kennedy had kept us out of Vietnam, our ill will around the world wouldn't exist. We pissed just as many people off in that incursion as we did in Iraq. Kennedy, it can be said, is the reason that people don't trust the government.

I completely agree with TDiggity's idea that charisma clouds people's judgment. Obama and Kennedy both are very charismatic speakers whose behind the scenes maneuvering is detrimental to America. The Cuba embargo is one of the worst acts this nation has ever committed. Kennedy's zeal to fight Communism thrust a thriving tropical paradise into poverty. As much as Castro is at fault, so is Kennedy. We eliminated tourism, their sugar, tobacco, and rum trade. These were the industries that sustained that nation. They have no other exports. Bay of Pigs may have been a misstep, but once we chased the Russians, relations could have been saved.

I will grant you the peace corp and NASA. Every President has some successes, and these were hit. The civil rights amendments and legislation should be attributed to LBJ. He did the civil rights work in Kennedy's administration. LBJ pushed the legislation in Congress, and signed it as President a few years later.

Obama being identified as a Kennedy is a great comparison, TDiggity, and one I have made myself. An unrepentant liberal trying to spend his way into the hearts of Americans. In 1960 Kennedy proposed running an eleven figure deficit (which, due to inflation is roughly eleventy gazillion dollars in today's money, give or take) in order to stimulate the economy. He wanted to cut taxes on demand side (consumers) so that he could tax the same dollar ten times. If I earn an extra dollar because of a tax cut, I am going to spend it, and get taxed, then then person who earns it gets taxed, and then spends it, and gets taxed, and the guy who he spent it with gets taxed and then pays tax, etc. He refused to allow for a supply side tax cut (corporations and small business) which leads to employment, and allows for hundreds of dollars to get taxed once instead of one dollar getting taxed a hundred times. The economic gorwth of the 50's stopped in it's tracks. Does this sound familiar to anyone? It's the classic argument between Keynes and Friedman. Supply side or demand side.