Poll
Question:
Mirror, mirror, on the wall, who's the most overrated of them all?
Option 1: Jefferson
votes: 2
Option 2: TR
votes: 1
Option 3: FDR
votes: 9
Option 4: Truman
votes: 3
Option 5: JFK
votes: 10
Option 6: Reagan
votes: 20
Option 7: Bush I
votes: 0
Option 8: Clinton
votes: 2
Option 9: Other
votes: 4
Well? And I don't want to hear any "Lincoln, squee!" :contract:
Almost all Presidents are underrated IMO.
Dutch and Bubba.
Oh, hard. I chose Jefferson, with JFK as a runner-up.
I don't really see Reagan as particularly highly rated. He's lionized in certain circles, but he's widely despised as well.
Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, both Roosevelts, Kennedy.
FDR. Truman as a second.
Wilson.
Reagan easily. The Reagan cult is really strange, in particular because it is so divorced from the real Reagan.
Quote from: Habbaku on July 23, 2011, 05:39:05 PM
FDR. Truman as a second.
Agree on the first, disagree on the second. Truman did a pretty good job playing the hand he was dealt.
I'd argue the Shrub as the second-most over-rated president.
Dave is the most under-rated President.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 23, 2011, 05:43:02 PM
Reagan easily. The Reagan cult is really strange, in particular because it is so divorced from the real Reagan.
First-term Reagan was one of the greats. Second-term Reagan was a senile fool.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 23, 2011, 05:43:02 PM
Reagan easily. The Reagan cult is really strange, in particular because it is so divorced from the real Reagan.
That's what I mean--overrated by whom? The people who overrate Reagan are basically subhuman.
Whereas everyone loves that slaveowning tyrant Jefferson because he plagiarized Locke and wrote Bible fan fiction.
Andrew Johnson is probably the most overrated president by far.
Quote from: grumbler on July 23, 2011, 05:46:21 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 23, 2011, 05:43:02 PM
Reagan easily. The Reagan cult is really strange, in particular because it is so divorced from the real Reagan.
First-term Reagan was one of the greats. Second-term Reagan was a senile fool.
What was so great about the first term?
Quote from: Razgovory on July 23, 2011, 06:12:12 PM
Quote from: grumbler on July 23, 2011, 05:46:21 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 23, 2011, 05:43:02 PM
Reagan easily. The Reagan cult is really strange, in particular because it is so divorced from the real Reagan.
First-term Reagan was one of the greats. Second-term Reagan was a senile fool.
What was so great about the first term?
He wasn't Jimmy Carter.
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 23, 2011, 06:13:03 PM
He wasn't Jimmy Carter.
In many ways he was. The deregulation trend started under Carter and so did the arming of the Muhajeedeen in Afghanistan.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 23, 2011, 06:15:40 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 23, 2011, 06:13:03 PM
He wasn't Jimmy Carter.
In many ways he was. The deregulation trend started under Carter and so did the arming of the Muhajeedeen in Afghanistan.
Hush, you. Let me hate on Jimmy in peace.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 23, 2011, 06:12:12 PM
What was so great about the first term?
Inflation went from 13% to under 4%, Reagan hammered the PATCO fucks, income taxes dropped 40% at the top level and 30% at the lowest level, while increasing revenues, the Grenada invasion, and the whole "last pages of communism" stance including his handling of the cruise/Pershing deployment that would lead to the IRNF Treaty. "Morning in America."
You can certainly blame his administration foir ignoring the problems with the S&L business (which would blow up in his second term) and the Lebanon miscalculation that turned into a disaster, but it was a great first term, by any standards.
Read some history.
Reagan tax cuts didn't increase revenues, they led to huge budget deficits that were only partially corrected in 1986. In fact, you can trace the deficits of today back to Reagan, his term is when they first started exploding since WW2.
Quote from: DGuller on July 23, 2011, 06:49:43 PM
Reagan tax cuts didn't increase revenues, they led to huge budget deficits that were only partially corrected in 1986. In fact, you can trace the deficits of today back to Reagan, his term is when they first started exploding since WW2.
Spending is what led to the deficits, but those weren't regularly horrendous until the second term. I will note that you are correct that income tax income as a percentage of GDP did drop as a result of the tax cuts, contrary to my recollection of the time, and so withdraw that claim.
I'm kicking your ass Kleves for even putting TR in your poll choices.
Quote from: Ideologue on July 23, 2011, 06:01:15 PMWhereas everyone loves that slaveowning tyrant Jefferson because he plagiarized Locke and wrote Bible fan fiction.
As a southern boy, I'm surprised you swallow the revisionist McCulloch Jefferson-hate that's been all the rage the last few years.
Quote from: grumbler on July 23, 2011, 06:43:49 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 23, 2011, 06:12:12 PM
What was so great about the first term?
Inflation went from 13% to under 4%, Reagan hammered the PATCO fucks, income taxes dropped 40% at the top level and 30% at the lowest level, while increasing revenues, the Grenada invasion, and the whole "last pages of communism" stance including his handling of the cruise/Pershing deployment that would lead to the IRNF Treaty. "Morning in America."
You can certainly blame his administration foir ignoring the problems with the S&L business (which would blow up in his second term) and the Lebanon miscalculation that turned into a disaster, but it was a great first term, by any standards.
Read some history.
Tax cuts that led to major deficits, attacking on a Union, an invasion of tiny unimportant island, propaganda, and nuclear weapons. Wow, how could I have overlooked such greatness.
He didn't attack a union. He fired some federal workers who were striking illegally.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 23, 2011, 07:13:04 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on July 23, 2011, 06:01:15 PMWhereas everyone loves that slaveowning tyrant Jefferson because he plagiarized Locke and wrote Bible fan fiction.
As a southern boy, I'm surprised you swallow the revisionist McCulloch Jefferson-hate that's been all the rage the last few years.
I just know that Jefferson enjoyed owning humans and feared the federal government until he was the federal government, when he learned to love abusing his power.
And Deism is a choice made by pussies.
Okay, overall, he's not a
monster, particularly by the standards of his time (e.g., any European ruler), but his treatment as an icon disgusts me.
Quote from: Admiral YiHe didn't attack a union. He fired some federal workers who were striking illegally.
Maybe Raz meant the Soviet one. :hmm:
:D
Good one Dump Truck.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 23, 2011, 07:29:01 PM
Tax cuts that led to major deficits, attacking on a Union, an invasion of tiny unimportant island, propaganda, and nuclear weapons. Wow, how could I have overlooked such greatness.
The tax cuts didn't lead to the deficits, spending did (and not just military spending, which didn't increase all that much from Carter's final years).
But you seem to have the answer you want. I certainly won't inflict upon you answers that you
don't want. Not even when they make sense.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 23, 2011, 07:31:12 PM
He didn't attack a union. He fired some federal workers who were striking illegally.
I don't believe that that's an answer Raz wants.
Quote from: grumbler on July 23, 2011, 07:40:47 PM
The tax cuts didn't lead to the deficits, spending did (and not just military spending, which didn't increase all that much from Carter's final years).
That's a questionable claim as well.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=1970_2016&view=1&expand=&units=p&log=linear&fy=fy12&chart=F0-fed&bar=1&stack=1&size=m&title=&state=US&color=c&local=s
Spending seems relatively flat as percent of GDP during Reagan's term, and doesn't have the definitive movements like the income tax revenue as percent of GDP does.
http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/downchart_gr.php?year=1900_2010&view=1&expand=&units=p&log=linear&fy=fy12&chart=10-fed&bar=0&stack=1&size=m&title=&state=US&color=c&local=s
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 23, 2011, 07:36:23 PM
:D
Good one Dump Truck.
We need to break you from this nickname habit.
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 23, 2011, 06:16:45 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 23, 2011, 06:15:40 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 23, 2011, 06:13:03 PM
He wasn't Jimmy Carter.
In many ways he was. The deregulation trend started under Carter and so did the arming of the Muhajeedeen in Afghanistan.
Hush, you. Let me hate on Jimmy in peace.
Fuck you, sweater vest monkey. You come after James Earle Carter: Cold Warrior, you come after me.
Quote from: grumbler on July 23, 2011, 07:41:27 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 23, 2011, 07:31:12 PM
He didn't attack a union. He fired some federal workers who were striking illegally.
I don't believe that that's an answer Raz wants.
You were the one to characterize them as PATCO, which was a labor union. I simply rolled with what you wrote.
Reminds me of the old Bloom County cartoon, where Santa fired all the elves.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 23, 2011, 08:08:52 PM
Reminds me of the old Bloom County cartoon, where Santa fired all the elves.
But Santa was the first to characterize them as elves, and the cartoon simply rolled with what he wrote.
JFK. I'm not sure it's possible to overrate Clinton, that whoremonger.
Jeffereson was pretty awful aside from the Louisiana purchase. Voted for him.
Wilson and JFK would get 2nd and 3rd place.
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 23, 2011, 07:49:43 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 23, 2011, 07:36:23 PM
:D
Good one Dump Truck.
We need to break you from this nickname habit.
I guessed he was referring to me, but I can't be sure and really I have no idea what that meant.
Quote from: Ideologue on July 23, 2011, 10:26:45 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 23, 2011, 07:49:43 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 23, 2011, 07:36:23 PM
:D
Good one Dump Truck.
We need to break you from this nickname habit.
I guessed he was referring to me, but I can't be sure and really I have no idea what that meant.
Dude, you dumped Korea.
I think she bounced back.
Quote from: grumbler on July 23, 2011, 06:43:49 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 23, 2011, 06:12:12 PM
What was so great about the first term?
Inflation went from 13% to under 4%, Reagan hammered the PATCO fucks, income taxes dropped 40% at the top level and 30% at the lowest level, while increasing revenues, the Grenada invasion, and the whole "last pages of communism" stance including his handling of the cruise/Pershing deployment that would lead to the IRNF Treaty. "Morning in America."
You can certainly blame his administration foir ignoring the problems with the S&L business (which would blow up in his second term) and the Lebanon miscalculation that turned into a disaster, but it was a great first term, by any standards.
Read some history.
What was great about the Grenada invasion? Honest question, I know nothing about that event other than vaguely, perhaps mistakenly, recalling that OvB took part in it in some limited capacity.
It might just be that the best result to come from Grenada was making possible the film Heartbreak Ridge, irregardless of Mario Van Peebles.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 23, 2011, 10:31:37 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on July 23, 2011, 10:26:45 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 23, 2011, 07:49:43 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 23, 2011, 07:36:23 PM
:D
Good one Dump Truck.
We need to break you from this nickname habit.
I guessed he was referring to me, but I can't be sure and really I have no idea what that meant.
Dude, you dumped Korea.
While I appreciate your historical revisionism, that's not how I recall it happening. :P
Quote from: PRC on July 24, 2011, 02:11:40 AM
Quote from: grumbler on July 23, 2011, 06:43:49 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 23, 2011, 06:12:12 PM
What was so great about the first term?
Inflation went from 13% to under 4%, Reagan hammered the PATCO fucks, income taxes dropped 40% at the top level and 30% at the lowest level, while increasing revenues, the Grenada invasion, and the whole "last pages of communism" stance including his handling of the cruise/Pershing deployment that would lead to the IRNF Treaty. "Morning in America."
You can certainly blame his administration foir ignoring the problems with the S&L business (which would blow up in his second term) and the Lebanon miscalculation that turned into a disaster, but it was a great first term, by any standards.
Read some history.
What was great about the Grenada invasion? Honest question, I know nothing about that event other than vaguely, perhaps mistakenly, recalling that OvB took part in it in some limited capacity.
The only things I know about Grenada I learned from that arc in Doonesbury where Duke set up the Baby Doc Medical School.
Quote from: DGuller on July 23, 2011, 07:49:09 PM
That's a questionable claim as well.
Spending is the only thing that can lead to deficits. Logically. It's not questionable. Every Republican president since and including Reagan did it.
Quote from: Ideologue on July 24, 2011, 02:19:25 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 23, 2011, 10:31:37 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on July 23, 2011, 10:26:45 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 23, 2011, 07:49:43 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 23, 2011, 07:36:23 PM
:D
Good one Dump Truck.
We need to break you from this nickname habit.
I guessed he was referring to me, but I can't be sure and really I have no idea what that meant.
Dude, you dumped Korea.
While I appreciate your historical revisionism, that's not how I recall it happening. :P
I possess all sorts of historical revisionism when it comes to women.
Reagan. Washington. In certain (different) circles Truman and Wilson.
Quote from: Tonitrus on July 24, 2011, 02:18:27 AM
It might just be that the best result to come from Grenada was making possible the film Heartbreak Ridge, irregardless of Mario Van Peebles.
Securing the nutmeg supply.
Killin' cubans is always a good thing.
Depends by who.
In general- JFK, people regard him as being nigh on god. He seemed alright, not bad, but wasn't really around long enough to do much.
On the internet- Reagan, you'd think he was the best president ever to hear some people but some of what he did...more likely to be competing for worst than best president.
I have to agree with Katmai about how ridiculous it is TR is on this list. He is the most underrated President ever precisely because he isn't universally recognized as not only the best American President but the best single human being to have ever been born on this earth.
His inclusion in this poll should result in Kleves being viciously raped to death by a gang of enraged minotaurs.
That being said I think JFK has to be rated as the most overrated. He did good to avoid outright war during the Cuban Missile Crisis, but that shit wouldn't have gone down at all under Eisenhower, JFK's weakness is why the crisis even happened, JFK was notable for ignoring the advice of people who before he accepted their expertise without question. If he had listened to what several of his advisers were saying we may genuinely have had a nuclear exchange, and at minimum a true war with the Soviet Union (I don't view it as impossible we might have had a shooting war with the Soviets that was limited enough in scope as to not cause either side to push the launch button.) But if you look at the totality of his Presidency JFK had very few accomplishments and his reputation is almost Lincolnesque with none of the achievements of a Lincoln. LBJ was actually vastly more successful than Kennedy in getting Kennedy's domestic policies passed through the legislature. This is because LBJ was an old hand of the Senate and a master manipulator of that chamber; JFK was an absentee Senator whose daddy essentially bought him a political career through massive criminal campaign tactics, so Kennedy was not well suited to actually get significant legislation passed.
Clinton is also overrated but people aren't quite as over the top for him. Clinton was a Coolidge-esque caretaker President whose Presidency coincided with a massive economic boom and a Republican house that forced Clinton to compromise on welfare reform (for whatever reason liberal retconning has granted Clinton 100% of the credit for this.) This resulted in budget surpluses and happy years.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 24, 2011, 10:17:59 AM
I have to agree with Katmai about how ridiculous it is TR is on this list. He is the most underrated President ever precisely because he isn't universally recognized as not only the best American President but the best single human being to have ever been born on this earth.
His inclusion in this poll should result in Kleves being viciously raped to death by a gang of enraged minotaurs.
Dude, TR's awesome. I just felt that I had to include another highly rated Republican, lest CdM ban me. :contract:
Now, I like TR too, but he he was not flawless.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 24, 2011, 06:44:47 AM
Reagan. Washington. In certain (different) circles Truman and Wilson.
Washington can be considered great just one thing. He quit. Something so rare, and so important that King George called him "the greatest character of the age". Oh he did other important things, other things that people have done and have been called great for it, but resigning his commission in the army and only serving two terms is perhaps the most important thing that separated the founding of the US from other colonies in the Americas, and most of the revolutionary regimes in the world.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 24, 2011, 12:19:30 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 24, 2011, 06:44:47 AM
Reagan. Washington. In certain (different) circles Truman and Wilson.
Washington can be considered great just one thing. He quit. Something so rare, and so important that King George called him "the greatest character of the age". Oh he did other important things, other things that people have done and have been called great for it, but resigning his commission in the army and only serving two terms is perhaps the most important thing that separated the founding of the US from other colonies in the Americas, and most of the revolutionary regimes in the world.
Washington makes an easy target for the overrated label because he is so wrapped up (central?) to our national myths. Cherry trees and what have you. :)
Quote from: garbon on July 24, 2011, 12:45:15 PM
Washington makes an easy target for the overrated label because he is so wrapped up (central?) to our national myths. Cherry trees and what have you. :)
I think that you are correct; people today don't understand how powerful (because how rare) the whole "Cincinnatus" example was at the time. To walk away from power when your duty was done was an ideal whose realization truly shocked and impressed people. Today, we look at Presidents who do that and take it for granted (and, admittedly, there were exceptions like FDR).
FDR
Quote from: garbon on July 24, 2011, 12:45:15 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 24, 2011, 12:19:30 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 24, 2011, 06:44:47 AM
Reagan. Washington. In certain (different) circles Truman and Wilson.
Washington can be considered great just one thing. He quit. Something so rare, and so important that King George called him "the greatest character of the age". Oh he did other important things, other things that people have done and have been called great for it, but resigning his commission in the army and only serving two terms is perhaps the most important thing that separated the founding of the US from other colonies in the Americas, and most of the revolutionary regimes in the world.
Washington makes an easy target for the overrated label because he is so wrapped up (central?) to our national myths. Cherry trees and what have you. :)
It's also easy to look a list of the battles he fought and point out, "Hey, he lost most of these". Which is true, however he kept an army in field for almost a decade with little support and kept it a credible threat to the British. That's no mean task, especially for man who really didn't have much formal military training.
The devil's advocate view might be, though, that "he held slaves, and is thus immediately overrated".
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 24, 2011, 09:47:58 AM
Killin' cubans is always a good thing.
By that metric, JFK is the best president ever!
Quote from: TonitrusThe devil's advocate view might be, though, that "he held slaves, and is thus immediately overrated".
Yes.
Quote from: Tonitrus on July 24, 2011, 01:55:03 PM
The devil's advocate view might be, though, that "he held slaves, and is thus immediately overrated".
Doesn't even put a dent in his legacy. Compare him to Simon Bolivar who hated slavery, but did not resign. It's the difference between a stable Democratic Republic and an unstable series of dictatorships.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 24, 2011, 10:17:59 AM
JFK's weakness is why the crisis even happened, JFK was notable for ignoring the advice of people who before he accepted their expertise without question.
After Laos and the Bay of Pigs, I wouldn't have listened to those fucksticks either.
Quote from: Tonitrus on July 24, 2011, 01:55:03 PM
The devil's advocate view might be, though, that "he held slaves, and is thus immediately overrated".
I'm not sure what sense it makes evaluating historical actors if you are going to divorce them from their context.
Quote from: garbon on July 24, 2011, 03:03:58 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on July 24, 2011, 01:55:03 PM
The devil's advocate view might be, though, that "he held slaves, and is thus immediately overrated".
I'm not sure what sense it makes evaluating historical actors if you are going to divorce them from their context.
How is that divorcing them from their context?
Quote from: Ideologue on July 24, 2011, 02:00:38 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 24, 2011, 09:47:58 AM
Killin' cubans is always a good thing.
By that metric, JFK is the best president ever!
He didn't do it right.
I'm tempted to say Lincoln or Washington, both are very highly-rated presidents who have not been included in the poll. This immunity or sanctity is suspicious :hmm:
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on July 24, 2011, 03:46:21 PM
I'm tempted to say Lincoln or Washington, both are very highly-rated presidents who have not been included in the poll. This immunity or sanctity is suspicious :hmm:
As a mealy-mouthed Brit who hasn't had a decent political leader since Charles II I can understand this foolish comment, but as an American I tell you that I will put up with quite a lot but no way in hell I will stand for someone talking bad about George Washington or Abraham Lincoln. I sternly suggest you retract from this line of discussion lest you force me to defend the honor of my country in a duel.
Quote from: Tonitrus on July 24, 2011, 01:55:03 PM
The devil's advocate view might be, though, that "he held slaves, and is thus immediately overrated".
Hell, the devil's advocate view might be that "he had false teeth, and is thus immediately overrated."
Don't confuse devil's advocacy with actual rational argumentation. Devil's advocacy is designed to provoke thought, but not to win arguments.
Quote from: grumbler on July 24, 2011, 06:11:44 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on July 24, 2011, 01:55:03 PM
The devil's advocate view might be, though, that "he held slaves, and is thus immediately overrated".
Hell, the devil's advocate view might be that "he had false teeth, and is thus immediately overrated."
Don't confuse devil's advocacy with actual rational argumentation. Devil's advocacy is designed to provoke thought, but not to win arguments.
It's designed to test the validity of a case for Sainthood.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on July 24, 2011, 03:46:21 PM
I'm tempted to say Lincoln or Washington, both are very highly-rated presidents who have not been included in the poll. This immunity or sanctity is suspicious :hmm:
The question is "over-rated" though, not "highly rated." Merely being highly rated doesn't make one over-rated.
QuoteThe dogmas of the quiet past, are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise -- with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country.
Fellow-citizens, we cannot escape history. We of this Congress and this administration, will be remembered in spite of ourselves. No personal significance, or insignificance, can spare one or another of us. The fiery trial through which we pass, will light us down, in honor or dishonor, to the last generation. We say we are for the Union. The world will not forget that we say this. We know how to save the Union. The world knows we do know how to save it. We -- even we here -- hold the power, and bear the responsibility. In giving freedom to the slave, we assure freedom to the free -- honorable alike in what we give, and what we preserve. We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of earth.
Quote from: grumbler on July 24, 2011, 06:11:44 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on July 24, 2011, 01:55:03 PM
The devil's advocate view might be, though, that "he held slaves, and is thus immediately overrated".
Hell, the devil's advocate view might be that "he had false teeth, and is thus immediately overrated."
Don't confuse devil's advocacy with actual rational argumentation. Devil's advocacy is designed to provoke thought, but not to win arguments.
Did you just accuse me of inadvertantly making a rational argument? :mad:
And per your quote from Lincoln, there is no doubt in my mind, that Lincoln wins the "Most Eloquent President" award. And is certainly in the running for "Most Eloquent Human Being Ever".
Washington was a treasonous criminal, and thus not worthy of being considered 'great'.
Quote from: grumbler on July 24, 2011, 06:11:44 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on July 24, 2011, 01:55:03 PM
The devil's advocate view might be, though, that "he held slaves, and is thus immediately overrated".
Hell, the devil's advocate view might be that "he had false teeth, and is thus immediately overrated."
Don't confuse devil's advocacy with actual rational argumentation. Devil's advocacy is designed to provoke thought, but not to win arguments.
The rational argument in this case appearing to be "everyone was doing it."
Quote from: Neil on July 24, 2011, 07:36:16 PM
Washington was a treasonous criminal, and thus not worthy of being considered 'great'.
Don't you have a Pierre Trudeau RealDoll(tm) you should be violating right now?
Quote from: Ideologue on July 24, 2011, 07:37:44 PM
Quote from: grumbler on July 24, 2011, 06:11:44 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on July 24, 2011, 01:55:03 PM
The devil's advocate view might be, though, that "he held slaves, and is thus immediately overrated".
Hell, the devil's advocate view might be that "he had false teeth, and is thus immediately overrated."
Don't confuse devil's advocacy with actual rational argumentation. Devil's advocacy is designed to provoke thought, but not to win arguments.
The rational argument in this case appearing to be "everyone was doing it."
Wouldn't slavery at that point be considered not only moral, but laudable? They were rescuing people from Africa and transporting their descendents to a future of lucrative pro sports contracts and crime.
Quote from: Neil on July 24, 2011, 07:36:16 PM
Washington was a treasonous criminal, and thus not worthy of being considered 'great'.
You ought to be taken out back and flogged like the traitor you are. Everyone knows that the German pretender George III was no more a King than I, the true King during the Revolution was Charles Edward Louis John Casimir Sylvester Maria Stuart - Charles III (Bonnie Prince Charlie if you must), and since the peoples of Great Britain had long since forsaken the rightful monarchs of their Kingdom Washington was no more bound to them than I am to a random farm mule.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 24, 2011, 08:30:23 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 24, 2011, 07:36:16 PM
Washington was a treasonous criminal, and thus not worthy of being considered 'great'.
You ought to be taken out back and flogged like the traitor you are. Everyone knows that the German pretender George III was no more a King than I, the true King during the Revolution was Charles Edward Louis John Casimir Sylvester Maria Stuart - Charles III (Bonnie Prince Charlie if you must), and since the peoples of Great Britain had long since forsaken the rightful monarchs of their Kingdom Washington was no more bound to them than I am to a random farm mule.
Charles Stuart was a Catholic, and thus it would be illegal for him to be king.
I thought that law postdated him.
Quote from: Neil on July 24, 2011, 08:45:14 PM
Charles Stuart was a Catholic, and thus it would be illegal for him to be king.
You put the laws of man before the rightful succession of a King? The German George I was more than 50 places removed from the throne, so much so that it is almost laughable to consider him or any of his descendants proper Kings of the United Kingdom. How could a man feel allegiance to someone whose claim to the crown is so manufactured?
Quote from: Neil on July 24, 2011, 08:45:14 PM
Charles Stuart was a Catholic, and thus it would be illegal for him to be king.
Well, there's your problem right there.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 24, 2011, 10:13:06 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 24, 2011, 08:45:14 PM
Charles Stuart was a Catholic, and thus it would be illegal for him to be king.
You put the laws of man before the rightful succession of a King? The German George I was more than 50 places removed from the throne, so much so that it is almost laughable to consider him or any of his descendants proper Kings of the United Kingdom. How could a man feel allegiance to someone whose claim to the crown is so manufactured?
He wasn't a Catholic, so that's a pretty strong claim right there.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 24, 2011, 10:13:06 PM
You put the laws of man before the rightful succession of a King? The German George I was more than 50 places removed from the throne, so much so that it is almost laughable to consider him or any of his descendants proper Kings of the United Kingdom. How could a man feel allegiance to someone whose claim to the crown is so manufactured?
This is starting to sound like a No True Scotsman argument. All claims to all crowns are highly manufactured. Some people (e.g. Neil) willfully ignore that fact, and insist that all others willfully ignore that fact, but they are like Islamic extremists: to be guarded against, lest they do rash things, but not to be otherwise taken seriously.
I'm tempted to choose Jefferson for a variety of reasons. Ide already outlined most of them, but I will also add that in retrospect Jefferson was so obviously on the wrong side of history in his hatred of banks and desire to foster an agrarian republic that it is almost painful. Dude was also one self-righteous, hypocritical human being. However, Jefferson is already a figure of such immense controversy, that I'm not sure whether he is truly the most "overrated" of presidents.
From my vantage point in late July 2011, I've got to go with Reagan as the most overrated of presidents. Sure, I think he was in many ways a pretty good president who, coming after Carter and the upheavals of the '70's, restored some pride and prosperity to the US. But his legacy left an extremely damaging belief among his millions of fanbois, and that is "voodoo economics". The idea that deficits don't really matter, taxes should only be cut, never raised, etc. has contributed to what is arguably the greatest crisis for the USA in my lifetime. So many post-Reagan Republicans and their retarded Tea Bagging cousins have simply accepted that as a fundamental economic axiom that it is making the current attempt at dire-needed reform more difficult by several orders of magnitude.
The problem with Reagan is that alot of the things he did were expedients that were good in the particular circumstances of the time. But for some reason now they are embraced as eternal dogma.
I think JFK is more over-rated but unlike Reagan we do not keep trying to recreate his presidency all the time.
Well ok I guess the exception would be the Americorps thing.
I chose JFK as "most overrated" simply because his high rating was mostly based on his image* and the manner of his death, not on any concrete policies he actually enacted.
*Oh, and boffing Monroe. ;)
Quote from: Malthus on July 25, 2011, 09:31:13 AM
I chose JFK as "most overrated" simply because his high rating was mostly based on his image* and the manner of his death, not on any concrete policies he actually enacted.
*Oh, and boffing Monroe. ;)
OK, vM.
Quote from: Valmy on July 25, 2011, 08:58:50 AM
The problem with Reagan is that alot of the things he did were expedients that were good in the particular circumstances of the time. But for some reason now they are embraced as eternal dogma.
I agree with the latter part of your observation, but disagree that that's a "problem with Reagan." It's a problem with the Reagan idolators, but he is dead.
I would say that the problem with Reagan is that his second term pretty much undid any good his first term accomplished.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 23, 2011, 08:03:16 PM
Fuck you, sweater vest monkey. You come after James Earle Carter: Cold Warrior, you come after me.
:lol:
Quote from: Zeus on July 25, 2011, 10:25:58 AM
Quote from: The Brain on July 24, 2011, 01:34:16 PM
FDR
da fuck? How could anyone say FDR is overrated?
In many circles he is considered one of the greatest presidents.
Quote from: The Brain on July 25, 2011, 10:28:54 AM
Quote from: Zeus on July 25, 2011, 10:25:58 AM
Quote from: The Brain on July 24, 2011, 01:34:16 PM
FDR
da fuck? How could anyone say FDR is overrated?
In many circles he is considered one of the greatest presidents.
I'm sure there are circles where Nixon was the greatest president. Doesn't make him over rated.
Quote from: Zeus on July 25, 2011, 10:29:41 AM
Quote from: The Brain on July 25, 2011, 10:28:54 AM
Quote from: Zeus on July 25, 2011, 10:25:58 AM
Quote from: The Brain on July 24, 2011, 01:34:16 PM
FDR
da fuck? How could anyone say FDR is overrated?
In many circles he is considered one of the greatest presidents.
I'm sure there are circles where Nixon was the greatest president. Doesn't make him over rated.
Whatever you say, Mr. Assertion.
I voted FDR as well. :hug:
:rolleyes: You people are misguided.
Quote from: Zeus on July 25, 2011, 10:39:17 AM
:rolleyes: You people are misguided.
Convincing.
Quote from: Habbaku on July 25, 2011, 10:50:37 AM
Quote from: Zeus on July 25, 2011, 10:39:17 AM
:rolleyes: You people are misguided.
Convincing.
I've noticed even the most convincing arguments here are often overlooked and disregarded.
Surely the most over-rated President must be George Washington?
Not overrated as a General, or a revolutionary leader, but his time as President was fairly unremarkable, and yet the hagiography of President Washington is strong.
Quote from: Zeus on July 25, 2011, 10:52:37 AM
Quote from: Habbaku on July 25, 2011, 10:50:37 AM
Quote from: Zeus on July 25, 2011, 10:39:17 AM
:rolleyes: You people are misguided.
Convincing.
I've noticed even the most convincing arguments here are often overlooked and disregarded.
Nobody really cares.
Quote from: Barrister on July 25, 2011, 11:09:47 AM
Surely the most over-rated President must be George Washington?
Not overrated as a General, or a revolutionary leader, but his time as President was fairly unremarkable, and yet the hagiography of President Washington is strong.
As was mentioned earlier...he left the Presidency when he could have easily stayed in it until death, and thus set one of the finest examples for an ideal of American politics.
Quote from: Tonitrus on July 25, 2011, 12:12:45 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 25, 2011, 11:09:47 AM
Surely the most over-rated President must be George Washington?
Not overrated as a General, or a revolutionary leader, but his time as President was fairly unremarkable, and yet the hagiography of President Washington is strong.
As was mentioned earlier...he left the Presidency when he could have easily stayed in it until death, and thus set one of the finest examples for an ideal of American politics.
So the best thing he did as President was to stop being President?
I think my point still stands.
Quote from: Barrister on July 25, 2011, 12:22:27 PM
So the best thing he did as President was to stop being President?
I think my point still stands.
:lol: Sounds like some Canadians here are still bitter that America refused to take them in 1812.
Quote from: Barrister on July 25, 2011, 11:09:47 AM
Surely the most over-rated President must be George Washington?
Not overrated as a General, or a revolutionary leader, but his time as President was fairly unremarkable, and yet the hagiography of President Washington is strong.
He set the standard. :huh:
I don't think we could have asked for a better first president.
Quote from: Zeus on July 25, 2011, 10:52:37 AM
Quote from: Habbaku on July 25, 2011, 10:50:37 AM
Quote from: Zeus on July 25, 2011, 10:39:17 AM
:rolleyes: You people are misguided.
Convincing.
I've noticed even the most convincing arguments here are often overlooked and disregarded.
Well, yeah, but you only get to complain about it when you make one.
Washington is considered an able administrator and also respected by historians for being mostly non partisan. Yes, his personal politics were heavily Federalist but he refused to play a partisan game. He is also genuinely respected for defining the nature and scope of the Presidency, some of his examples are still followed today while some have been abandoned, but much of the executive office was defined by how Washington interpreted the somewhat intentionally vague Second Article of the USC.
Quote from: citizen k on July 25, 2011, 12:56:07 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 25, 2011, 11:09:47 AM
Surely the most over-rated President must be George Washington?
Not overrated as a General, or a revolutionary leader, but his time as President was fairly unremarkable, and yet the hagiography of President Washington is strong.
He set the standard. :huh:
I don't think we could have asked for a better first president.
But that goes to the Washington myth-making, not reality.
"He set the standard" - what does that even mean?
Discussing "over-rated" or "under-rated" is in some ways a rather silly exercise. It's not trying to assess whether someone was a good President, or a bad President, but whether the popular perception is out of line with a more objective analysis.
Quote from: Barrister on July 25, 2011, 12:59:29 PM
But that goes to the Washington myth-making, not reality.
"He set the standard" - what does that even mean?
Discussing "over-rated" or "under-rated" is in some ways a rather silly exercise. It's not trying to assess whether someone was a good President, or a bad President, but whether the popular perception is out of line with a more objective analysis.
It means just what it says on the tin. The Constitution was rather vague. Washington's interpretation is how the government really works.
Also notable is Washington fleshed out a much more limited Presidency than we have today. For example Washington did not have a legislative agenda because he viewed that as the Congress sphere of respnsibility. Washington also used the veto only to strike down laws he felt were unconstitutional, it wasn't until Andrew Jackson that Presidents started vetoing legislation purely because they personally opposed it.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 25, 2011, 12:58:32 PM
Washington is considered an able administrator and also respected by historians for being mostly non partisan. Yes, his personal politics were heavily Federalist but he refused to play a partisan game. He is also genuinely respected for defining the nature and scope of the Presidency, some of his examples are still followed today while some have been abandoned, but much of the executive office was defined by how Washington interpreted the somewhat intentionally vague Second Article of the USC.
That's it though. An "able administrator" is hardly the highest of praise.
I'm pretty sure any ranking of Presidents puts Washington in the top 3 (I think Lincoln usually gets #1). I'm not saying he was a bad President, but I don't know if objectively he's much more than middle of the pack.
Washington also personally put down a rebellion and prevented a military coup.
Washington's resignation can't be overstated in importance. It's why the American Republic survived and England's Republican under Cromwell did not (and Britain saw unrest and instability for nearly 100 years after).
Quote from: Barrister on July 25, 2011, 01:06:11 PM
I'm pretty sure any ranking of Presidents puts Washington in the top 3 (I think Lincoln usually gets #1). I'm not saying he was a bad President, but I don't know if objectively he's much more than middle of the pack.
Have you ever read about the Washington presidency?
http://www.amazon.com/Washington-Indispensable-James-Thomas-Flexner/dp/0316286168/ref=pd_sim_b_4 (http://www.amazon.com/Washington-Indispensable-James-Thomas-Flexner/dp/0316286168/ref=pd_sim_b_4)
He also has a four volume biography.
Quote from: Barrister on July 25, 2011, 11:09:47 AM
Surely the most over-rated President must be George Washington?
Not overrated as a General, or a revolutionary leader, but his time as President was fairly unremarkable, and yet the hagiography of President Washington is strong.
Very little of that hagiography (that I'm aware of) concerns his presidency, except the manner in which it ended.
Quote from: citizen k on July 25, 2011, 01:28:07 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 25, 2011, 01:06:11 PM
I'm pretty sure any ranking of Presidents puts Washington in the top 3 (I think Lincoln usually gets #1). I'm not saying he was a bad President, but I don't know if objectively he's much more than middle of the pack.
Have you ever read about the Washington presidency?
http://www.amazon.com/Washington-Indispensable-James-Thomas-Flexner/dp/0316286168/ref=pd_sim_b_4 (http://www.amazon.com/Washington-Indispensable-James-Thomas-Flexner/dp/0316286168/ref=pd_sim_b_4)
He also has a four volume biography.
I have not read a 4 volume biography of Washington, no.
Feel free to educate me however. I'm not inflexible - show me how I'm wrong.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 25, 2011, 01:19:20 PM
It's why the American Republic survived and England's Republican under Cromwell did not (and Britain saw unrest and instability for nearly 100 years after).
Yeah...I have a hard time believing that. Washington, even when he was just President, was hardly universally beloved enough he could have declared himself dictator for life. The notion it was only Washington's restraint that kept us from naming him autocrat always struck me as a tad ridiculous. He was, after all, critisized by the Republican press quite a bit for his policies.
However I do think it was fortunate Washington had no blood descendents. That would have been a mighty political dynasty indeed.
Also the problems facing the long term survival of the British Commonwealth were more profound than simply Cromwell taking his mandate as far as he did.
Quote from: Valmy on July 25, 2011, 02:37:55 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 25, 2011, 01:19:20 PM
It's why the American Republic survived and England's Republican under Cromwell did not (and Britain saw unrest and instability for nearly 100 years after).
Yeah...I have a hard time believing that. Washington, even when he was just President, was hardly universally beloved enough he could have declared himself dictator for life. The notion it was only Washington's restraint that kept us from naming him autocrat always struck me as a tad ridiculous. He was, after all, critisized by the Republican press quite a bit for his policies.
However I do think it was fortunate Washington had no blood descendents. That would have been a mighty political dynasty indeed.
Also the problems facing the long term survival of the British Commonwealth were more profound than simply Cromwell taking his mandate as far as he did.
You don't have to be universally beloved to become a dictator. There are plenty of examples in South America where the liberator makes himeself a tyrant, I doubt everyone loved those guys. Washington probably had most prestige and respect in the whole of the Colonies. He was unanimously elected President of the constitutional convention and got 100% of the electoral college behind when he ran for President. It would have been so very easy to simply stay on as President or to use his military rank to achieve goals in his Presidency.
When the Articles of Confederation failed it would have been very tempting to simply step in and assume power for the good of the nation. If he had, he likely would have gotten away with it.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 25, 2011, 03:35:15 PM
When the Articles of Confederation failed it would have been very tempting to simply step in and assume power for the good of the nation. If he had, he likely would have gotten away with it.
Considering the strong opposition to the Constitution itself, even backed by Washington, I have my doubts. I think the Revolution had made the American population particularly radical and mobilized politically in that era.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 25, 2011, 03:35:15 PM
Quote from: Valmy on July 25, 2011, 02:37:55 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 25, 2011, 01:19:20 PM
It's why the American Republic survived and England's Republican under Cromwell did not (and Britain saw unrest and instability for nearly 100 years after).
Yeah...I have a hard time believing that. Washington, even when he was just President, was hardly universally beloved enough he could have declared himself dictator for life. The notion it was only Washington's restraint that kept us from naming him autocrat always struck me as a tad ridiculous. He was, after all, critisized by the Republican press quite a bit for his policies.
However I do think it was fortunate Washington had no blood descendents. That would have been a mighty political dynasty indeed.
Also the problems facing the long term survival of the British Commonwealth were more profound than simply Cromwell taking his mandate as far as he did.
You don't have to be universally beloved to become a dictator. There are plenty of examples in South America where the liberator makes himeself a tyrant, I doubt everyone loved those guys. Washington probably had most prestige and respect in the whole of the Colonies. He was unanimously elected President of the constitutional convention and got 100% of the electoral college behind when he ran for President. It would have been so very easy to simply stay on as President or to use his military rank to achieve goals in his Presidency.
When the Articles of Confederation failed it would have been very tempting to simply step in and assume power for the good of the nation. If he had, he likely would have gotten away with it.
That's actually not a bad point. I too doubt that Washington could have declared himself "dictator for life", but the south american
caudillos certainly show how you can assume almost complete control of a country and maintain a thin veneer of democracy.
But it still doesn't sit right to say someone is a great president because of what he didn't do.
Quote from: Valmy on July 25, 2011, 03:38:15 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 25, 2011, 03:35:15 PM
When the Articles of Confederation failed it would have been very tempting to simply step in and assume power for the good of the nation. If he had, he likely would have gotten away with it.
Considering the strong opposition to the Constitution itself, even backed by Washington, I have my doubts. I think the Revolution had made the American population particularly radical and mobilized politically in that era.
It doesn't matter whether it would have succeeded or not. Any attempt to concentrate more power in the hands of one man, at the point, would have destabilized the fledgling government at the very least.
Monsters.
You know who is overrated, but left out of the Poll. Jackson. The guy was like a god to Democrats for decades (and is considered the founder of the Democratic Party). Truman considered him the best, and Jackson was terrible. His actions on the trail of tears verge on dictatorial control (beside the unjustness and wickedness of the act), he advocated policy based on personal grudges and killed the Bank of the United States which destroy the US economy. He was beloved by many, and might be considered the first "populist" president. He is often associated with widening enfranchisement in the US, though I don't know how much he actually had to do with it. I give him credit for preventing civil war in the nullification crisis as his enemies knew he had a few screws loose and when he stated that he would hang them, they believed it. A Civil War in 1830's could have actually favored the South, or at least diminished the advantages of the North.
We don't have a list of underrated Presidents. Polk and Taft would be good candidates.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 25, 2011, 07:55:52 PM
I give him credit for preventing civil war in the nullification crisis as his enemies knew he had a few screws loose and when he stated that he would hang them, they believed it.
LOL, the quotation (from Wikipedia): "Jackson would have the final words a few days later when a visitor from South Carolina asked if Jackson had any message he wanted relayed to his friends back in the state. Jackson's reply was:
'Yes I have; please give my compliments to my friends in your State and say to them, that if a single drop of blood shall be shed there in opposition to the laws of the United States, I will hang the first man I can lay my hand on engaged in such treasonable conduct, upon the first tree I can reach.'"
Obama needs to pull a page out of Jackson's book. :ph34r: :showoff:
Quote from: Razgovory on July 25, 2011, 07:55:52 PM
You know who is overrated, but left out of the Poll. Jackson. The guy was like a god to Democrats for decades (and is considered the founder of the Democratic Party). Truman considered him the best, and Jackson was terrible. His actions on the trail of tears verge on dictatorial control (beside the unjustness and wickedness of the act), he advocated policy based on personal grudges and killed the Bank of the United States which destroy the US economy. He was beloved by many, and might be considered the first "populist" president. He is often associated with widening enfranchisement in the US, though I don't know how much he actually had to do with it. I give him credit for preventing civil war in the nullification crisis as his enemies knew he had a few screws loose and when he stated that he would hang them, they believed it. A Civil War in 1830's could have actually favored the South, or at least diminished the advantages of the North.
No, I don't disagree at all. Jackson was a bad, bad president, but I can't help but admire how he threatened to destroy South Carolina, which, as you know, is a treasured dream of my own.
Quote from: Ideologue on July 25, 2011, 08:11:02 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 25, 2011, 07:55:52 PM
You know who is overrated, but left out of the Poll. Jackson. The guy was like a god to Democrats for decades (and is considered the founder of the Democratic Party). Truman considered him the best, and Jackson was terrible. His actions on the trail of tears verge on dictatorial control (beside the unjustness and wickedness of the act), he advocated policy based on personal grudges and killed the Bank of the United States which destroy the US economy. He was beloved by many, and might be considered the first "populist" president. He is often associated with widening enfranchisement in the US, though I don't know how much he actually had to do with it. I give him credit for preventing civil war in the nullification crisis as his enemies knew he had a few screws loose and when he stated that he would hang them, they believed it. A Civil War in 1830's could have actually favored the South, or at least diminished the advantages of the North.
No, I don't disagree at all. Jackson was a bad, bad president, but I can't help but admire how he threatened to destroy South Carolina, which, as you know, is a treasured dream of my own.
Save Charleston for me.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on July 25, 2011, 08:08:45 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 25, 2011, 07:55:52 PM
I give him credit for preventing civil war in the nullification crisis as his enemies knew he had a few screws loose and when he stated that he would hang them, they believed it.
LOL, the quotation (from Wikipedia): "Jackson would have the final words a few days later when a visitor from South Carolina asked if Jackson had any message he wanted relayed to his friends back in the state. Jackson's reply was:
'Yes I have; please give my compliments to my friends in your State and say to them, that if a single drop of blood shall be shed there in opposition to the laws of the United States, I will hang the first man I can lay my hand on engaged in such treasonable conduct, upon the first tree I can reach.'"
Obama needs to pull a page out of Jackson's book. :ph34r: :showoff:
Oh, yeah. You didn't fuck with Jackson. When a would-be assassin tried to kill him, Jackson started to kicked his ass. His closest friend was Thomas Heart Benton, who had once shot Jackson. When a Man insulted Jackson's wife, he challenged the guy to a duel (and the guy was considered one of the finest duelists in the country). He shot Jackson, and Jackson just stood there aimed his gun, and killed the man. He later said he would have shot the guy even if he been first shot through the brain. He's one of the most interesting presidents, that 's for certain.
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 25, 2011, 08:13:21 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on July 25, 2011, 08:11:02 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 25, 2011, 07:55:52 PM
You know who is overrated, but left out of the Poll. Jackson. The guy was like a god to Democrats for decades (and is considered the founder of the Democratic Party). Truman considered him the best, and Jackson was terrible. His actions on the trail of tears verge on dictatorial control (beside the unjustness and wickedness of the act), he advocated policy based on personal grudges and killed the Bank of the United States which destroy the US economy. He was beloved by many, and might be considered the first "populist" president. He is often associated with widening enfranchisement in the US, though I don't know how much he actually had to do with it. I give him credit for preventing civil war in the nullification crisis as his enemies knew he had a few screws loose and when he stated that he would hang them, they believed it. A Civil War in 1830's could have actually favored the South, or at least diminished the advantages of the North.
No, I don't disagree at all. Jackson was a bad, bad president, but I can't help but admire how he threatened to destroy South Carolina, which, as you know, is a treasured dream of my own.
Save Charleston for me.
Well, I meant as a political entity, but I'd spare Charleston anyway since my sister lives there. :P
I'm torn between Wilson and JFK.
Quote from: AnchorClanker on July 25, 2011, 09:23:14 PM
I'm torn between Wilson and JFK.
In high school, they presented us with Wilson being too idealistic.
Wilson's got all the good faults. Terrible foreign policy, terrible domestic policy, and he was an extreme racist and supporter of the Ku Klux Klan.
He was like a white Barack Obama, essentially.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 25, 2011, 08:15:48 PM
He later said he would have shot the guy even if he been first shot through the brain.
He may have even believed it himself, but I doubt he would be able to carry out that intention had he been indeed shot through the brain. Having your brain destroyed not only plays a number on your motor skills, but more often than not it leads to near-instantaneous unconsciousness. He would neither be able to shoot accurately, or even pull the trigger at all. Jackson was lucky that he wasn't shot through the brain.
Quote from: DGuller on July 26, 2011, 01:28:19 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 25, 2011, 08:15:48 PM
He later said he would have shot the guy even if he been first shot through the brain.
He may have even believed it himself, but I doubt he would be able to carry out that intention had he been indeed shot through the brain. Having your brain destroyed not only plays a number on your motor skills, but more often than not it leads to near-instantaneous unconsciousness. He would neither be able to shoot accurately, or even pull the trigger at all. Jackson was lucky that he wasn't shot through the brain.
Remember that we only use 3% of the brain.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 25, 2011, 10:43:29 PM
Wilson's got all the good faults. Terrible foreign policy, terrible domestic policy, and he was an extreme racist and supporter of the Ku Klux Klan.
He was like a white Barack Obama, essentially.
What part of Obama's foreign policy do you disagree with? You're a great deal too smart to engage in this Hansian bullshit seriously.
Quote from: Queequeg on July 26, 2011, 02:14:37 AM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 25, 2011, 10:43:29 PM
Wilson's got all the good faults. Terrible foreign policy, terrible domestic policy, and he was an extreme racist and supporter of the Ku Klux Klan.
He was like a white Barack Obama, essentially.
What part of Obama's foreign policy do you disagree with? You're a great deal too smart to engage in this Hansian bullshit seriously.
I think that last sentence was a joke.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 24, 2011, 12:19:30 PMWashington can be considered great just one thing. He quit. Something so rare, and so important that King George called him "the greatest character of the age". Oh he did other important things, other things that people have done and have been called great for it, but resigning his commission in the army and only serving two terms is perhaps the most important thing that separated the founding of the US from other colonies in the Americas, and most of the revolutionary regimes in the world.
No doubt. He embodies the genius of the American revolution which was its radical conservatism. It avoided the (alleged) excesses of the French revolution and I think the fundamentally counter-revolutionary fears that held back the Libertadores from achieving similar greatness. You had a revolution of the propertied class - although, unfortunately, that property did often include men.
But that, in my view, is it. In terms of achievements he is surrounded by greater men - but again that could add to his deserved reputation.
QuoteI'm tempted to say Lincoln or Washington, both are very highly-rated presidents who have not been included in the poll. This immunity or sanctity is suspicious
The more I read of Lincoln the more I think he's possibly the greatest statesman ever. I think he's a genuinely extraordinary man.
QuoteWashington's resignation can't be overstated in importance. It's why the American Republic survived and England's Republican under Cromwell did not (and Britain saw unrest and instability for nearly 100 years after).
Cromwell was always torn as to whether his purpose was, ultimately, to create a Godly commonwealth or to be the kindly constable who would 'set and heal the wounds'. That ambiguity runs through the Commonwealth - especially institutionally.
Interestingly, given his reputation as, if nothing else, a devout man, many of Cromwell's contemporaries suspected his religious feeling wasn't nearly as strong as he suggested and was, perhaps, manipulated for political advantage.
But the Commonwealth had other issues.
Alleged excesses. :D
The early US had plenty of issues to deal with as well, some which were not resolved without civil war, but even at it's most dire moments the federal institutions of government were maintained. There are few states in the world that have so long a history of smooth continuity of government as the US. Something that is a bit astonishing as it's one of the younger nations in the world.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 28, 2011, 05:06:51 PM
But the Commonwealth had other issues.
Like illegitimacy.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 28, 2011, 05:06:51 PM
QuoteI'm tempted to say Lincoln or Washington, both are very highly-rated presidents who have not been included in the poll. This immunity or sanctity is suspicious
The more I read of Lincoln the more I think he's possibly the greatest statesman ever. I think he's a genuinely extraordinary man.
I am inclined to agree and I'm fairly certain that his assasination was a great tragedy for the USA, things would have gone a lot better under his oversight. However, he is rated 11 out of 10, so we have to at least entertain the possibility that he is overrated :D
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 28, 2011, 05:06:51 PM
You had a revolution of the propertied class - although, unfortunately, that property did often include men.
Both the French and the Russian revolutions started as revolutions of the propertied class. The thing is that they didn't end there.
If the American revolution took its ideals to the logical conclusion - the way the French and the Russian ones did - and freed the slaves, there would have been blood. Lots of it.
I guess you could say that the reason why the American Revolution suceeded without a complete overhaul of the social order is because the enemy it had was weak - the British colonial rule simply did not have the same kind of resources the Russian or the French absolutism (including their external allies) could potentially throw to fight the revolutionaries.
That is why it did not need to resort to "summoning the chtonic forces" of the lower, property-less classes in order to win - it could do it without upsetting the middle class's dominance.
So, without detracting from Washington's statesmanship, the American revolutionaries simply had an easier time preventing a blood bath - they weren't necessarily more reasonable or ethical than their French or Russian fellows - they were just lucky.