30-08-2002 02:18									#91
	Got spare money?

Given the historical context, crazy ol' Ronnie stands out, though if Ashcroft goes much further we may have a new winnner.

	30-08-2002 02:49									#92
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: You're comparing the war on terror vs WW2, and I'm the dumbass?

Yes, that's right. If you can say a knock on FDR is a knock against WW2 vets, then I can say a knock on Bush is a knock on people fighting the War on Terror. There's no difference except in scale.

	30-08-2002 02:50									#93
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Sure, you can say it, but you'd be wrong .

	30-08-2002 02:55									#94
	Increase the size of your Attachments

How so?

	30-08-2002 03:33									#95
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Several, and they weren't ardent White Supremacists. Wilson's "Internationalism" was also more like "Extremely Overbearing International Interference."

I 'said' internationalist and idealist.

The white supremacy issue has already been answered.

quote: Woodrow Wilson forced America into WW1, costing over 120,000 US lives. For that alone, he counts as one of the worst in my book.

You prefer isolationism?

	30-08-2002 03:36									#96
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Chris 62 Very lame Boris, go read about the man, concentrate on his time as california governer.

Why would I do that when we were only discussing his presidency?

quote: I did? That must be some trick, considering I NEVER post at CGN.

Pardon. I thought CGN = counterglow.net.

quote: Considering I never made such an assertion, why do you keep saying I did?What are you talking about? Will you quit phantom quoting me?

Ok, months and months ago you said that the Europeans attacked the Natives because the Natives attacked them first, and they were "reaping the Whirlwind." Now, you couldn't have meant the Vikings in that thread, as the repulsion of the Vikings from N. America was unknown to the Europeans who ended up slaughtering the Natives. You couldn't have meant the English, as they arrived well after there were documented attacks on Europeans by Natives. So I can only conclude you were implying the Natives attacked the Spanish first, which is 100% incorrect.

quote: No evidence? The place was razeed to the groud. Who did it, Gremlins? Nice theory, buy why were the buildings destroyed?

What? Where are you getting this from? The buildings were razed? Says who? The pallisade was in tact and standing. That's why Roanoke's disappearance is a mystery--the buildings WERE NOT destroyed. They had been rifled through, but not "razed." Is this what you call "facts?"

quote: Since when were the Virgina tribes so accomdating? This is what I referred to earlier, making it up as you go along.

Um, they were quite accomodating at first:

"At first, relations with the Indians continued friendly, though the Englishmen had their detractors in the Council of the Indian Chief. The aborigines planted crops and made fish traps for the Englishmen. With rare foresight, the colonists also induced Chief Wingina (who had changed his name to Pemisapan) to put into simultaneous cultivation his lands both on Roanoke Island and on the mainland at Dasamonquepeuc in order that the Indians might have no excuse for not being able to supply the colony if need arose."

The Indians helped the colonists. But the colonists neglected planting their own crops and preparing for winter. When lean times came, the colonists had nothing, and the Indians weren't going to share any more because they only had enough for themselves. The English responded to this by stealing from Native traps and Grenville eventually even burned a native village. Yeah, no provocation there.

quote: You stated it as fact, just a few pages ago.The beauty of these things is you can't escape your own words: "He was certainly wrong, IMO, when he blatantly stole the 2000 election, but again, that's off-topic. " In your opinion he blatently stole the election. How did he accomplish this little feat? The disputed ballots were from democratic counties, and the law was clear as to what were leagal ballets. Just a tad biased there, wern't you?

And since I preceded my words by stressing it was my own point of view...then of course it is my opinion. Duh again. I didn't say "blatantly" either. If that were the case, he'd be in jail. I was asserting, IMO, that he stole the election, an act that would certainly be wrong. I base that opinion on the multitude of shenanigans before, during, and after the election in FL thanks to his brother's political machine, as well as the ridiculousness of counting absentee militarty ballots that were clearly postmarked after the legal date, etc. And again, too much to discuss here and irrelevant.

quote: You know, I have heard that from several people when your name came up.

You wanna know how many people I hear saying things about you? I don't think so...it's a lot. And I don't care what you've heard, because I'm sure the sources are people I could say things about, too.

quote: I never "hammer away with nonsense", if I spaek on something it's either from personal experience or university training.

Hmm, since you weren't at Roanoke, what university training told you it was razed to the ground?

quote: Nonsense. For the last two days you have trying to make it a personal battle,

Personal? I know you like to take things personally, but I certainly don't consider any of our exchanges to be about anything personal. I certainly don't go leaping from the gate making personal insults and attacks against people with different opinions, unlike SOME people here...

quote: Your a silly Lefty Boris, everybody knows it, you have no objectivity.

I've made no secret of my left-leaning feelings, so why would I care if everyone knows it? I'm not the least bit ashamed of it either. And you have no objectivity, either. I just realize it's not crucial to having a debate over one's opinions to be objective, as opinions aren't objective. Nobody in this entire world is objective.

quote: Just figured that out, did you?

Um, no, as I've been saying that all along. But apparently you did! So here's a cookie!

Now SIT! STAY! and no more peeing on the rug.

	30-08-2002 03:36									#97
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: You prefer isolationism?

Oh absolutely, at least in terms of foreign policy.
Trade, of course, should be totally free.

	30-08-2002 03:52									#98
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd Oh absolutely, at least in terms of foreign policy. Trade, of course, should be totally free.

I was curious if there were any presidents you liked?

	30-08-2002 04:09									#99
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Hmmmm....Coolidge was OK, which is more than I can say for many of the others.
I wouldn't say there was any President that I would have voted for over a Libertarian candidate, by any means.

	30-08-2002 04:28									#100
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

DF, what about the pre-Lincoln presidents, like Washington, or Adams, or Jefferson, etc?

	30-08-2002 04:30									#101
	Suffering from ads?

Jefferson. Surely he's as bad as reagon right?

And we can't forget about Monroe.

What about Washington. A general who killed thousands of innocent British troops

	30-08-2002 04:51									#102
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Dissident What about Washington. A general who killed thousands of innocent British troops

On a sidenote, I always like to gleefully point out that it could only be the British who would think it proper military tactics to march into battle using big, densely-packed block formations while wearing astoundingly-bright red uniforms with giant, pointy black hats on top...

	30-08-2002 05:11									#103
	Suffering from ads?

quote: DF, what about the pre-Lincoln presidents, like Washington, or Adams, or Jefferson, etc?

Not a huge fan of them, especially Jefferson, who had good ideas prior to being President, but somewhere along the line apparently decided he liked power. He wasn't a huge fan of the Supreme Court, that's for sure.

	30-08-2002 06:02									#104
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

"How so?"

We're wasting our time with him David. Sava is just a plain stupid person. He obviously has no grasp of logic, otherwise he would see the inconsistency in saying that insulting FDR is insulting WWII vets but insulting GWB is not insulting people fighting the war on terror. Because he sucks at arguing, he tries to make up for it with insults. But he isn't evem good at that. Personally, I really sorry for this man.

	30-08-2002 06:10									#105
	Inflate your Upload Space

WHERE'S WOODROW WILSON???????!?????!? he's by far the evilest! In his absence though, Bush Jr (though I'd say ashcroft maybe even above wilson if he were available)

	30-08-2002 06:32									#106
	Got spare money?

quote: Sorry, to disappoint you Davey, but I'm pretty sure I know a tad bit more about history as you, considering my minor in it at DePaul University.

And Chris is a PHD in history. What's your point?

And Sava, you are utterly moronic aren't you? An attack on FDR an attack on our soldiers in WW2? Floyd is right.. it is EXACTLY like saying an attack on Bush is an attack on soldiers in the WoT. Shi was right on the money, Sava is a plain stupid person. At least Boris makes some good points now and then (but I'd take Chris's view most of the time over his anyway).

As for the question, no one was truely EVIL (in the right definition of the word), but Kennedy sucked more than most.

	30-08-2002 07:19									#107
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Kennedy did not suck. He made the Soviets back down, that is OK in my book. Castro wanted local control on the missiles, so he could decide when to fired them. I keep telling most of you, until you live the time period, you do not know what it was like in 1962. I do, I was in the Navy in 62.

	30-08-2002 07:23									#108
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Yes but Kennedy was wrong to let his brother handle so many situations. Namely Cuba.

He was a strong president, and it was nice having a strong president. But he handled many Cuba operations poorly. Although I do agree with his handling of the Cuban missle crisis. But every other foreign policy I have problems with.

	30-08-2002 07:43									#109
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Kennedy did not suck. He made the Soviets back down, that is OK in my book.

There are better ways to make the Soviets back down. Kennedy did what Bush is doing. Things that any president might have done, but in the worst way possible, ignoring diplomacy and using a lot of bluster and in the process got Krushchev sacked and replaced by the much worse Breznev.

	30-08-2002 07:46									#110
	Remove this text

quote: Floyd is right..

Whoa, when's the last time you heard Imran say that?

	30-08-2002 07:50									#112
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Probably not again for a while, either, unless I say something like "Reagan was DA MAN!"

	30-08-2002 08:02									#113
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd Probably not again for a while, either, unless I say something like "Reagan was DA MAN!"

Yeah, but when would you ever say something like that? You may have some whacked ideas, but you've never seemed crazy before!

	30-08-2002 08:03									#114
	Support Apolyton

Good point

	30-08-2002 08:05									#115
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd Chris - yeah, I forgot about JFK. In addition to having some of the looser morals compared to other Presidents, he could have caused nuclear war. Honestly, what was wrong with Russian missiles in Cuba? For crying out loud we had them in Turkey and Germany - what's the difference?

What's the difference between me holding a gun to your head, and you holding one to mine?

The difference is that we used the nuclear threat to offset a massive superiority in manpower and materiel in conventional forces in Europe. US nuclear forces are obviously offensive weapons, but were employed for purposes of strategic defence, in lieu of massively increased manpower and economic appropriations to counterbalance the Soviet ground forces.

The Soviet deployment of missiles in Cuba was intended to give a pre-emptive first strike ability and to neutralize the US nuclear deterrent in Europe, giving the Soviets the strategic advantage in any confrontation in Europe.

	30-08-2002 08:05									#116
	Increase Your PM Length

Now if you did say 'Reagan was DA MAN!" you'd get another 'Floyd is right' without a doubt .

	30-08-2002 08:08									#117
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd Not a huge fan of them, especially Jefferson, who had good ideas prior to being President, but somewhere along the line apparently decided he liked power. He wasn't a huge fan of the Supreme Court, that's for sure.

Perhaps because the Supreme Court created it's "right" of "judicial review" of legislative and executive acts out of extra-constitutional thin air?

Show me in the Constitution where the Supreme Court is empowered to void acts of either of the other two branches of government.

	30-08-2002 08:10									#118
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: The difference is that we used the nuclear threat to offset a massive superiority in manpower and materiel in conventional forces in Europe. US nuclear forces are obviously offensive weapons, but were employed for purposes of strategic defence, in lieu of massively increased manpower and economic appropriations to counterbalance the Soviet ground forces.

From the Soviet Union's point of view, they would never have attacked, and were themselves worried about NATO aggression. Both sides feared the other, and both sides believed they were acting defensively while the other side's actions were provocative.

quote: The Soviet deployment of missiles in Cuba was intended to give a pre-emptive first strike ability and to neutralize the US nuclear deterrent in Europe, giving the Soviets the strategic advantage in any confrontation in Europe.

Of course, the US already had strategic first strike capability in terms of ballistic missile submarines. No side was any different in this regard, really, because both sides believed they were acting defensively against the other.

Of course, both sides acted quite offensively at times - the Soviets in the case of Afghanistan and putting down anti-Communist revolts in Poland, Hungary, the Czechoslovakia, and the US in places such as Vietnam, Nicaragua, Grenada, and Panama.

	30-08-2002 08:12									#119
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Show me in the Constitution where the Supreme Court is empowered to void acts of either of the other two branches of government.

It isn't there. Marshall decided it would be nice and no one challenged him over it.

	30-08-2002 08:16									#120
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Perhaps because the Supreme Court created it's "right" of "judicial review" of legislative and executive acts out of extra-constitutional thin air? Show me in the Constitution where the Supreme Court is empowered to void acts of either of the other two branches of government.

Well, Article III Section 2, which states:

"Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects."

Seems to imply that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over cases arising under the Constitution. Judicial review kicks in when a law is passed that someone believes violates the Constitution, and that person sues to have the law removed. Since Congress is granted certain powers by the Constitution, if someone sues on Constitution grounds, then it seems that it would be a case of law arising under the Constitution, right?

This seems to give the Supreme Court jurisdiction over the case.