Who was a good leader/president in your country.

Page 3 of 6 [ 85 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

JWC
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Feb 2011
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 740
Location: Macondo Wellhead

05 Jun 2012, 4:42 pm

enrico_dandolo wrote:

JWC wrote:

duncvis wrote:

Must be nice to be able to reduce the achievements of a statesman down to whether state provided affordable dentistry was as good as private (which is still widely available for those with the means, btw). :wink:

I'm a quality over quantity guy, myself.

By "quality", I imagine you mean that the rich have all the good stuff (and very good stuff indeed), while the poor have nothing?

Gee, that does sound interesting.

On topic, I liked Trudeau and Chrétien because they had style. Also, they are not on bills, which is a good thing because both Borden and MacKenzie King scare me to death.

I grew up poor, just above the poverty line, and I always had access to whatever dental/medical care that was needed. I guess it pays to have responsible parents.

Rocky
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 1 May 2008
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,074
Location: Uhhh...Not Remulak

05 Jun 2012, 4:55 pm

Joker wrote:

Here is my list of United States Presidents that I liked.

1. George Washington.
2. FDR
3. Abraham Lincoln
4. Bill Clinton
5. JFK
6. Thomas Jefferson
7.Andrew Jackson

You probably are not aware of the fact that Andrew Jackson is responsible for one of the worst atrocities perpetrated on the Native Americans by the US government. Do a search for the "Trail of Tears" for the details. Jackson even ignored the orders of the Supreme Court to do this.

I am surprised to see you include Thomas Jefferson on your list, since he evolved from being a Deist to being an Atheist. I would count that in his favor, but you probably would not.

Theodore Roosevelt would be high on my list, along with FDR. For one thing, Teddy stood up to business excesses, like monopolies. FDR helped get us out of the Depression and win WWII.

_________________
"Reality is not made of if. Reality is made of is."
-Author prefers to be anonymous.

blauSamstag
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Apr 2011
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,026

05 Jun 2012, 4:58 pm

William Henry Harrison. By nature of doing the least damage.

Rocky
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 1 May 2008
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,074
Location: Uhhh...Not Remulak

05 Jun 2012, 5:01 pm

Raptor wrote:

Theodore Roosevelt

I listed my main reason for TR. Knowing your conservative inclinations, wouldn't you count that against him? Why did you list him as your favorite?

_________________
"Reality is not made of if. Reality is made of is."
-Author prefers to be anonymous.

Rocky
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 1 May 2008
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,074
Location: Uhhh...Not Remulak

05 Jun 2012, 5:29 pm

ruveyn wrote:

Rainy wrote:

Perhaps you'd like the US South to democratically continue enslaving people of African descent instead?

No I wouldn't like it one bit. I am not sure I would be ready to start a war that killed 620,000 American and maimed 1.5 million more over the issue however. Being Jewish I am rather prejudiced against slavery. Once we were slaves to Pharo in Egypt....

I am not sure I would be ready to lay down my life to free another people or ask that folks lay down their lives for that cause.

My freedom is mine so I would fight to defend it. Your freedom is yours. You take care of what is yours and I will take care of what is mine.

ruveyn

Lincoln was more concerned with keeping the United States united than eliminating slavery. If you were the President of the USA when the southern states declared themselves to be an independent country, would you have just let them go? To quote Lincoln:

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. . . . [¶] I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free."

It was only after the war started that the Emancipation Proclamation was passed.

_________________
"Reality is not made of if. Reality is made of is."
-Author prefers to be anonymous.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

05 Jun 2012, 5:53 pm

Rocky wrote:

The Colonies seceded from Britain, why can't some of the states secede from the Union. The Unions was created by an act of sovereign political will on the part of the States, so it can be dissolved. Lincoln apparently did not believe in local self determination. So 620,000 people died and 1.5 million were maimed because of what Lincoln willed.

ruveyn

Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

05 Jun 2012, 6:18 pm

ruveyn wrote:

Rocky wrote:

That's pretty much the way I see it, too.............

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

05 Jun 2012, 8:35 pm

Raptor wrote:

That's pretty much the way I see it, too.............

I will even go you one better. The "freeing" of 4 million black slaves was NOT worth the cost in lives, blood, pain and property. 620,000 dead of wound and disease. 1.5 million maimed. Many of the black slaves who were "freed" ended up in worse economic circumstances and within 20 years were re-chained, so to speak, by the Jim Crow laws. All the death and destruction not only failed to produce justice for black folk (that was somewhat achieved 100 years later with the civil rights laws) but produced misery in the North. The liberators were ill requited for their good deed. No good deed will go unpunished.

Slavery would have died out from sheer economic unworkability in the next generation without the effusion of blood and the smashing of bodies. The reconstruction of the Union destroyed the Federal character a -federation- of sovereign entities was replaced by a unitary nation state in which the states become mere departments of the central government. One of the immediate results of the Civil War was the government counterfeiting of money, the green back and the income tax which was declared illegal by the courts in 1864 but was made the law of the land in 1913. This is what the Civil War brought us. Bloated government, unlimited power to tax and redistribute income. Some benefit that is.

ruveyn

enrico_dandolo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Nov 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 866

05 Jun 2012, 9:23 pm

JWC wrote:

I grew up poor, just above the poverty line, and I always had access to whatever dental/medical care that was needed. I guess it pays to have responsible parents.

So we should punish unlucky children for their irresponsible parents?

ruveyn wrote:

Technically, the Confederates shot first.

Rocky
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 1 May 2008
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,074
Location: Uhhh...Not Remulak

06 Jun 2012, 5:36 am

ruveyn wrote:

Rocky wrote:

As Enrico posted, the South started hostilities by attacking Fort Sumter. If Lincoln had then allowed the succession, abolitionists would have continued to run the Underground Railroad, and the southern states might have considered that to be an act of war. This might have caused a war anyway. Instead of a Civil War, it would have been between the remaining States of America and the country formed by the southern states. I know this is only speculation, but a possible scenario.

_________________
"Reality is not made of if. Reality is made of is."
-Author prefers to be anonymous.

JWC
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Feb 2011
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 740
Location: Macondo Wellhead

06 Jun 2012, 10:39 am

enrico_dandolo wrote:

JWC wrote:

I grew up poor, just above the poverty line, and I always had access to whatever dental/medical care that was needed. I guess it pays to have responsible parents.

So we should punish unlucky children for their irresponsible parents?

Just pointing out that the problem is irresponsibility, not poverty.

How is not providing the children with stolen property punishment?

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

06 Jun 2012, 10:54 am

Rocky wrote:

As Enrico posted, the South started hostilities by attacking Fort Sumter.

That is hardly justification for a 4 years war that killed 620,000 people. (In a country with a population of only 30 million).

ruveyn

enrico_dandolo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Nov 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 866

06 Jun 2012, 2:06 pm

JWC wrote:

enrico_dandolo wrote:

JWC wrote:

I grew up poor, just above the poverty line, and I always had access to whatever dental/medical care that was needed. I guess it pays to have responsible parents.

So we should punish unlucky children for their irresponsible parents?

Just pointing out that the problem is irresponsibility, not poverty.

How is not providing the children with stolen property punishment?

Because they are given disadvantages for their parents' behaviour. (The problem is poverty, but I was staying within the bounds you set by mentionning your own experience.)

How is letting them develop various health problems beneficial?

JWC
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Feb 2011
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 740
Location: Macondo Wellhead

06 Jun 2012, 2:11 pm

enrico_dandolo wrote:

JWC wrote:

enrico_dandolo wrote:

JWC wrote:

I grew up poor, just above the poverty line, and I always had access to whatever dental/medical care that was needed. I guess it pays to have responsible parents.

So we should punish unlucky children for their irresponsible parents?

Just pointing out that the problem is irresponsibility, not poverty.

How is not providing the children with stolen property punishment?

How is theft beneficial?

enrico_dandolo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Nov 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 866

06 Jun 2012, 2:19 pm

Even though the description of taxes as theft is far-fetched, we notice that in the end, if it allows poorer people to live decently (or even just to live) and their children to grow up with a chance to do better than them, the final result is better than if no one was "stolen".

JWC
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Feb 2011
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 740
Location: Macondo Wellhead

06 Jun 2012, 3:15 pm

enrico_dandolo wrote:

Ok, I think I've got it now.

Stealing is okay, as long as the person who receives the stolen property needs it more than the person it is stolen from.

amirite?

Page 3 of 6 [ 85 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next

Jump to:

Who was a good leader/president in your country. Post Reply New Topic

Who was a good leader/president in your country.