 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Japher
|
 |
Ook! Ook! Ack! Ack! Ack!
Jun 2002
time: 05:31
|
|
Sloww's on the right track, IMO... I won't agree that the elected candidate was the BEST, but they work, and they work and have worked well enough to get the US to where it is today; a HYPERPOWER!!!
Roosevelt good for sustaining war
Truman good to end it
Same with Kennedy, Nixon, Eisenhower...
In maritime we generally elect those with more buisness oriented attitudes. During wars we elect generals. Though I don't understand Carter, but hey!?
Anyway, I think Clinton did a have way decent job and prepared us for this trying time we are in now. Bush is good because he is stubborn and won't let other countries push us around and determine what is best for us, our way of life, and our national security... Three things I think Gore would of folded in on himself with...
Anyway, we will never know. Lets just continue to argue on who the best candidate is and go out and vote... THe nation has spoken...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rufus T. Firefly
|
 |
is one way of saying it, though I prefer "mensch"
Sep 2000
time: 07:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by SlowwHand
Voter's in the United States always seem to be able to elect the Presidential candidate that's best, for that point in time.
Go back and look at elections throughout history, and you'll see it's so.
You don't have to love President Bush, to acknowledge he was better than Gore, for this point in time. |
Of course, I have to agree with you here, since the American people elected Gore. The Electoral College, on the other hand, elected Bush. 
Meanwhile, care to justify...
Hoover over Al Smith in 1928?
Wilson over Theodore Roosevelt in 1912?
Harrison over Grover Cleveland in 1888? (a mistake the public itself corrected in 1892)
JQ Adams over Andrew jackson in 1824?
J Adams over Thomas Jefferson in 1796?
And those are just the obvious ones...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rufus T. Firefly
|
|
is one way of saying it, though I prefer "mensch"
Sep 2000
time: 07:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by oedo
I go with Sava´s statement here. if Gore would have become president, 9-11 would never have happened. this is about as impossible to prove as it is to disprove, but so is Slowwhand’s hypothesis. |
Nah, Sloww's hypothesis is easy to disprove; see the examples in my previous post.
As for Gore v. Bush, I think 9-11 would still have happened. But consider:
Gore might not have bombed Afghanistan. Result: Taliban still in power, Osama has a hiding place we can't get to. Bush bombed Afghanistan. Result: the Taliban are driven from power but are agressively regrouping; Osama still, apparently, has a hiding place we can't get to, and the place has become a bloody, anarchic mess.
Gore probably wouldn't have signed USA PATRIOT. Bush did.
Gore wouldn't have cut taxes. Result: a sluggish economy but a balanced federal budget. Bush cut taxes. Result: a sluggish economy and a massive deficit, one that even Bush's best projections indicate will be around for years and will greatly increase the federal debt.
Gore wouldn't have invaded Iraq without UN approval. Result: Saddam is still in power, but isolated, and the US still commands the respect of other nations. Bush does invade Iraq. Result: Saddam falls from power. Also, a protracted occupation with no clear end in sight, costing in excess of $1 billion/week; loss of respect and cooperation of much of the rest of the world, including close allies; the likely emergence of an Islamic state in Iraq in the near- to middle-future.
I don't know exactly what kind of president Gore would have been, but I'm having trouble seeing a clear-cut case for Bush's superiority.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rufus T. Firefly
|
|
is one way of saying it, though I prefer "mensch"
Sep 2000
time: 07:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Japher
During wars we elect generals. Though I don't understand Carter, but hey!?
|
Thus the elections of Gen. Jefferson, Gen. Madison, Gen. Lincoln, Gen. McKinley, Gen. Wilson, Gen. Roosevelt, and Gen. Nixon?  WTF?
I'm having trouble thinking of a general other than Eisenhower whom we did elect during wartime. I think you are today's proud recipient of the Gary Coleman Award -- as in, "What you talkin' 'bout, Willis?"
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CerberusIV
|
|
The problem with Sloww's hypothesis is that it rests on the faulty assumption that the President actually does anything or has any real influence.
As it is all decided by the people who paid for his election and pull the strings behind the scenes - but who they are only becomes apparent AFTER the election - who actually sits in the Oval Office doesn't really matter.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
As for Gore v. Bush, I think 9-11 would still have happened. But consider: |
You can't say any of that would have happened this way or that. Nearly every war we fought in the 20th Century was started when a Democrat was in office. It was under two Demcratic presidents, Wilson and Turman, that the worst anti-left repression in the US began. It was under other Democratic presidents: Kennedy and Johnson, that COINTELPRO reached its greatest extent. Under the Democrat Clinton, we staved a million Iraqis to death.
Bush may be a partiularly venal, stupid, and corrupt President, but in terms of war and domestic repression, he's not really that far removed from most of our previous Presidents.
As for the deficit, deficit spending during a recession can be a good thing, provided it's properly targetted. This is where his stupidity and corruption make a difference, since this deficit isn't targetted to stimuating the economy.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:31.
Apolyton Time is 00:31. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
09-10-2003 02:18
|