quote:posted by Lyrhawn: I'm just saying that what we think of today as the PRIMARY focus of that line in the constitution is NOT what was originally intended, it was the for the benefit of the other way around.
I understand that, and I think the historical evidence is there to support that. My response to that, however, is that one is necessary to ensure the other. In the course of enforcing the limit on influence the founders intended, limiting the church's influence on the state is a prudent measure to take. Basically, I can't swallow the idea that there's such a thing in this kind of context as unidirectional influence.
quote:When you elect a religious president who tells you right up front that God wants him to be president and he's going to act on his faith, then you should vote for him accordingly depending on your own beliefs.
Inevitably, a candidates's public policy will derive from their morality. I can live with that. But take, for instance, the time a reporter asked Bush if he had consulted with his father over Iraq, since Bush Sr. had experience conducting a war there. W replied, "...he is the wrong father to appeal to in terms of strength. There is a higher father that I appeal to." This really symbolizes the dangers, as I see them, of of church -> state influence. Prayer and faith can't replace empirical fact and experiential wisdom.
quote:This happened in 04, and Bush won.
We could debate that, but I don't think its really necessary. Suffice to say, I disagree.
quote:For the matters that can't be decided by elections, it has to go to the courts, though quite frankly I think much of it should just be solved with common sense. Sadly, there isn't enough to go around.
Too true, but that's why we need governments and courts and whatnot.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:A substantial gap before FDR, and then quite a ways before anyone else. FDR was good, but the national crises and trials he faced when compared to Lincoln and Washington? Piddling.
I agree about the first substantial gap, but I'd put Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, and Reagan in a seocndary tier with a smaller gap between them and the next tier. And I switch the order around depending on the day.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, I didn't. But looking back upon some of his proposed projects and things that I've heard from people who were around in the 80's, he wasn't as amazing as you guys seem to be making him out to be.
I don't really know, having had no personal expierence with the man and his policies.
Posts: 6026 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Agreed, I lived in the '80s. Reagana was a crackpot.
An uncle of mine (great-uncle, actually, and unfortunately now deceased) was a Russian language translator for the Federal government. He got to sit in on a few meetings where Reagan was present. Reagan would come in, tell a joke (unrelated to anything at hand), and fall asleep. My uncle's opinion on Reagan, from first-hand experience? A crackpot.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:FDR was good, but the national crises and trials he faced when compared to Lincoln and Washington? Piddling.
I couldn't possibly disagree with that more, btw.
The Great Depression and WW2 were both potentially nation-ending problems. The Civil War, of course, was devastating -- but moreso than the threat of the Nazis conquering Europe?
I look at it like this... Lincoln saved America, and FDR saved the world.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:We could debate that, but I don't think its really necessary. Suffice to say, I disagree.
I'm curious as to what precisely you disagree with there. I'm alright with no arguing, fun as it can be, but I would like to know what your issue is with that.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SteveRogers: I like William Henry Harrison purely because he was too stubborn to have his inauguration inside and died of pneumonia, a month later, because of it.
Since many many years ago, I have said that William Henry Harrison was the best President, because less is more. Posts: 3932 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think George Washington was the greatest president ever. After the Revolutionary War, he was asked to become king. He refused and said there shouldn't be any kings in America. #2 would be Lincoln and #3 would be Regan.
BTW, for everyone that claims FDR "saved" us from the Great Depression, you should check out this book.
posted
I think that who is "the best President" really depends on the situation. FDR probably would've sucked as President during the Revolutionary War, and GW probably would've sucked as President during the Depression and WWII.
As a side note, my American History teacher despised George Washington. Routinely called him a bumbling idiot or something along those lines. I'll try to look at my notes to remember exactly why, but from the information he gave us, he was very convincing.
Posts: 2827 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyrhawn, Basically, I don't think Bush won because of his faith. At least, no more than any other WASP president. I think he presented the image of a president who "stays the course." Bush, for a lot of people, I think, symbolized America because he was an authoritarian leader with traditional values. I think you're right inasmuch as those values were important in his persona, but I don't think they were the deciding factor. Merely a part of a larger portrait that Rove (and others) painted for the public. Bush won because his campaign said, both explicitly and implicitly, that Kerry was an elitist effete flip-flopper (which I have to admit, is really brilliant; how unmanly can you get?) while Bush was an unwavering leader who, no matter what what the world thought, was going to protect America.
I think this is evidenced by Bush's low approval ratings. The country isn't as terrified of terrorists anymore; we don't pee ourselves every time Homeland Security fiddles with the terror alert. Consequently, the very things that won him his reelection are what he's being taken to task for.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah alright. I didn't actually mean that he won BECAUSE of his faith, just that he highly represented his faith as a part of the package. And that's part of what we got, and what people voted for, whereas Kerry presented himself as the highly secular, though morally religious candidate (which most people didn't pay attention to, but there it is).
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
CANADA won ww2, the states got involved later..much later, just as they did in the first world war. knave
Posts: 1594 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah. Good thing we had that huge Canadian Navy and all those Canadian tanks and fighters, and bombers to fight the war with too.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:FDR was good, but the national crises and trials he faced when compared to Lincoln and Washington? Piddling.
I couldn't possibly disagree with that more, btw.
The Great Depression and WW2 were both potentially nation-ending problems. The Civil War, of course, was devastating -- but moreso than the threat of the Nazis conquering Europe?
One of the things that critics of FDR fail to recognize is seriousness of the great depression. When FDR took office, the US was on the verge on an all out class war. Given what happened in Germany and Russia during this time period, I think its very reasonable to assert that without FDRs reform, the US would have ended up with either a Fascist or a Communist dictatorship.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:GW probably would've sucked as President during the Depression and WWII.
Which would be different from the current situation in what way?
GW double you probably would have sucked as president in any era, but in this era he has been catastrophic.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Did the Canadian WWII tanks include the ones with no gun and a big hole in the top? I'm pretty sure it was Canada, but it might have been WWI. I remember seeing a picture of one in highschool.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
1. FDR. The New Deal, helped win WW2, got re-elected more than any other president. That last part alone makes him the popular winner of this contest. 2. Lincoln and Washington. (I don't know much about Washington so he could be #2 instead of Lincoln, I dunno) 3. Clinton. He's just cool. And, I actually remember his administration!
Posts: 44 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
1. George W. Bush 2. George W. Bush (2nd term) 3. George W. Bush (3rd term) 4. Garfield (Greatest president named after a cartoon cat)
I can't believe you people aren't voting Bush! Do you hate America? Obviously! (this whole part works best if you say it in your best Bush impression, like he's actually saying it to you).
Come on, he's fighting a war on Terror, and winning! How many presidents have beat an emotion? Did Washington beat Terror? Nope, because it's still here! Only GWB has the gumption to take on Terror. They used to call him "Terror Fightin' Georgie" back in the National Guard. That was his handle, like Goose and Maverick, only "Terror Fightin' Georgie" is so much cooler.
He stares Terror right in its beady little eyes and says, "Come on now terror, lets you and I go at it. I don't want to have to get all nuculer on your butt, but I'll do it (hehe, I said butt, but). Shock and Awe terror! Shock and Awe! And when I'm done, I'm gonna tag out and Rumsfeld's coming in, then he's gonna tag in Cheney, we might even get Condie in there. We'll have a Royal Rumble! Hehe, Royal, I like the sound of that."
Do you know why we didn't find any WMDs in Iraq? Because GW Shocked and Awed them out of existence! They just disappeared under a barrage of Democracy and Christianity!
So there you go. Case closed! If you say otherwise, you're un-American, and probably a terrorist or a communist! Go back to Iraq, you Taliban Washington and Lincoln lovers. Shock and Awe!
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:The Great Depression and WW2 were both potentially nation-ending problems. The Civil War, of course, was devastating -- but moreso than the threat of the Nazis conquering Europe?
I look at it like this... Lincoln saved America, and FDR saved the world.
The USA has dealt with many problems that were potentially 'nation-ending'. The Great Depression was one of them, WWII was not necessarily.
I look at it like this. Lincoln proved to the planet that a democratic republic could endure, and he did it in spite of terribly inept leadership of his subordinates. He made massively tough decisions, endured terrible personal losses, and continued to retain his committment to the Union.
FDR helped Americans regain their national courage in the face of a terrible economic crisis, and helped to inspire us to do something that desperately needed doing: fighting the Axis in WWII. But...this was something that probably would have happened anyway, and furthermore the 'saving the world' mantle belongs to FDR and other world leaders as well. Not least to Hitler, ironically, for his stunning military idiocies later in the war.
But Lincoln? He didn't save the Union alone, but he was the guiding light. If you took FDR away, there were potentially other American politicans who could have inspired America through the Great Depression (which, incidentally, would not have lasted forever no matter what) and to fight WWII (which was guaranteed to happen after Pearl Harbor).
If you took Lincoln away on the other hand...the United States of America would have failed, guaranteed. Or as close to guaranteed as is possible in such hypothetical discussions.
Reagan deserves to be up there, somewhere above the 0.500 mark, if only because he helped oversee the downfall of the USSR, something that badly needed to happen.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, just because it's making fun of GWB does not automatically make a joke funny. That's one of the less amusing aspects of political humor. Same goes for Clinton, of course.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you took Lincoln away on the other hand...the United States of America would have failed, guaranteed. Or as close to guaranteed as is possible in such hypothetical discussions.
I agree with this. But where we differ is I think you're vastly underestimating what FDR did.
I feel that mine is the stronger argument, personally, because yours is hypothetical. You're saying, 'Here's what could have happened.' I'm saying 'Here's what DID happen.'
But I thank you for your opinion and certainly appreciate your point of view (and the point of view of the other 'FDR? Nah' people.)
This has been a really fun thread for me to read and think about.
posted
I have to agree, I think the dangers posed by the Depression are greatly underemphasized in parts of this thread.
FDR was on the scene fixing the problem literally his first day in office. A do nothing president in this case would have been disastrous for the United States. It could have left many dead from starvation, or homeless (I should say, many MORE than there already were), and could have led to an eventual breakdown in basic services before it ever got better.
His handling of the situation not only averted a possible total disaster, it resulted in America becoming the strongest, most stable, and economically powerful nation on the planet. And that wasn't a given for any president, HE made it happen.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I feel that mine is the stronger argument, personally, because yours is hypothetical. You're saying, 'Here's what could have happened.' I'm saying 'Here's what DID happen.'
Mine is only very slightly hypothetical. It is not much of a hypothetical to say that if it had not been for President Lincoln, there would not have been a USA for FDR to save, and furthermore there's a chance that a good number of Hatrackers would be posting in a Confederacy that endorsed slavery...or did very recently. The idea of a nation run democratically, as a republic in the modern age, would have been proven to be a bust.
FDR dealt with a war that involved shooting hundreds and thousands of miles away from where he and his people lived. Lincoln dealt with a war where he could hear the gunfire from the White House, on occassion (I may be misremembering that. I seem to recall hearing it in a documentary more than once).
FDR successfully dealt with the Great Depression, a severe wound on the USA. Lincoln successfully dealt with all the economic trauma that results from having a civil war, which is like getting stabbed in the chest after getting shot in the gut.
My argument by necessity is hypothetical...but so is yours, really. Your argument that FDR is a great president is founded on the idea that if another president were in office, things could have been much worse. My argument that Lincoln was a great president is founded on the idea (near certainty, in my mind) that if anyone else were in office at the time, the Union would have failed.
Lincoln dealt with both personal and national grief and suffering, and still did a superb job, that make the Great Depression seem trivial. Even though it was not. A massive economic recovery program and inspiration thereof does not compare with saving the Union, I believe.
The point is, the Great Depression would have gotten better on its own. Eventually. The recovery if left to itself would have been much longer and more painful and more damaging, but it would have happened. A high tide lifts all boats, and the economic tides of the world were lifting in the buildup to WWII. Which, incidentally, also had much to do with FDR's success.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: You know, just because it's making fun of GWB does not automatically make a joke funny. That's one of the less amusing aspects of political humor. Same goes for Clinton, of course.
Actually it does. Any joke about GWB is automatically funny. Watch:
How many presidents does it take to screw in a lightbulb? I forget, but George W. Bush is a moron.
See, comedy genius! Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Mine is only very slightly hypothetical. It is not much of a hypothetical to say that if it had not been for President Lincoln, there would not have been a USA for FDR to save, and furthermore there's a chance that a good number of Hatrackers would be posting in a Confederacy that endorsed slavery...or did very recently. The idea of a nation run democratically, as a republic in the modern age, would have been proven to be a bust.
FDR dealt with a war that involved shooting hundreds and thousands of miles away from where he and his people lived. Lincoln dealt with a war where he could hear the gunfire from the White House, on occassion (I may be misremembering that. I seem to recall hearing it in a documentary more than once).
FDR successfully dealt with the Great Depression, a severe wound on the USA. Lincoln successfully dealt with all the economic trauma that results from having a civil war, which is like getting stabbed in the chest after getting shot in the gut.
Rakeesh, I agree with everything positive you've said about Lincoln. This is not a Lincoln vs. FDR debate by any means -- in my opinion they were both great. There really is no need for you to defend Lincoln to me. Lincoln is not under attack from me.
quote:My argument by necessity is hypothetical...but so is yours, really. Your argument that FDR is a great president is founded on the idea that if another president were in office, things could have been much worse.
No, it really isn't. My argument that FDR was a great president is founded on the fact that his leadership was crucial in solving various national and international crises. Those are pretty concrete facts. I'm not out here saying 'if Truman had been President it would have been an unbelievable disaster.' I'm saying, 'FDR was President, and look at the stuf he got done. Good for him, man.'
quote:My argument that Lincoln was a great president is founded on the idea (near certainty, in my mind) that if anyone else were in office at the time, the Union would have failed.
Lincoln dealt with both personal and national grief and suffering, and still did a superb job, that make the Great Depression seem trivial. Even though it was not. A massive economic recovery program and inspiration thereof does not compare with saving the Union, I believe.
Once again -- Lincoln is not under attack, here. I'm not sure why you keep defending him so vigorously. I agree with you.
quote:The point is, the Great Depression would have gotten better on its own. Eventually. The recovery if left to itself would have been much longer and more painful and more damaging, but it would have happened. A high tide lifts all boats, and the economic tides of the world were lifting in the buildup to WWII. Which, incidentally, also had much to do with FDR's success.
I don't know where you think your argument is anything other than totally hypothetical, Rakeesh is what I'm still confused about.
It's possible that what you're saying would have happened might have, in fact, happened. But the truth is we'll never know. Because it didn't happen. We do know what *did* happen -- which is that FDR took fantastic measures to solve potentially nation-ending problems, and succeeded.
Our disagreement is not that Lincoln wasn't a Great Man with a capital G and a capital M -- our disagreement is that I think you are *vastly* underestimating what FDR actually did.
That's all.
I think FDR was the Bees' Goddamn knees, and you don't.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's faulty to assume that if FDR hadn't fixed the US and brought them out of the Depression then Japan still would have attacked.
I think that Japan, seeing a weakened US still crippled by the Great Depression would have ignored us entirely, conquered New Zealand and Australia, smashed the allied navy in the Pacific, and would have then proceeded to fortify all holdings before proceeding to help Germany attack Russia by opening another front to the war.
Japan attacked the US because they felt the only move they could make was to attempt to cripple us, forcing a negotiated settlement. But if things had been that bad in 1942, America never would have instituted an oil embargo, we would have needed the income too much, and we never would have been able to get planes and tanks to Russia and GB.
World War Two was NOT a given for the US. We never could have fought the war if FDR hadn't of gotten is into the shape necessary to fight the war.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
[/QUOTE]Mine is only very slightly hypothetical. It is not much of a hypothetical to say that if it had not been for President Lincoln, there would not have been a USA for FDR to save, and furthermore there's a chance that a good number of Hatrackers would be posting in a Confederacy that endorsed slavery...or did very recently. The idea of a nation run democratically, as a republic in the modern age, would have been proven to be a bust. [/QB][/QUOTE]
I think that statement is very much hypothetical. There is definetely an argument that the south's economy was not supportable and so they would have eventually had to break. It really depends on how France responded, which is why framing the war as a slavery issue was such a good political decision. Made France more likely to go to Egypt for cotton, which would destroy the South's chance at economic stability. It has been too long since I was in history for me to site sources.
Lots of props to Jimmy Carter for his post-presidency work, as well (although I guess that doesn't technically apply to the subject of this thread).
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Lyrhawn : FDR was on the scene fixing the problem literally his first day in office. A do nothing president in this case would have been disastrous for the United States. It could have left many dead from starvation, or homeless (I should say, many MORE than there already were), and could have led to an eventual breakdown in basic services before it ever got better.
Oh yeah, the AAA was later declared unconstitutional.
In my own personal opinion, FDR's biggest blunder was taking us off the gold standard, which allows for rampant inflation. It has been roughly 70 years since this mistake. Assuming an average of 4% inflation each year, $6.42 in 1936 had the same purchasing power as $100 today. (Calculations taken from Economic Evaluation and Investment Decision Methods (10th Edition).)
posted
How funny: once taken off the fixed exchange rate in 1967, gold prices have inflated far faster than dollars ($35 then would be $171.97 in 1998, but $295.24 in gold in 1998, and that's after a drop from $389.09 in 1996!)
And of course, we have far better inflation figures than a 4% estimate; using one of the many free inflation calculators, $6.42 would have only reached $86.47 in 2005.
Not to mention that on a gold standard inflation would have been far more than the recent price of gold increase, for one simple reason: there's a limited supply, so as real production increases, prices must increase. Maintaining the gold standard requires a country to constantly acquire more gold, at increasing cost, even as the value of their existing gold drops. What's more, it prompts currency attacks.
FDR was quite right to migrate (officially; we were really already off it) from the gold standard instead of tieing our inflation to that artifical ratio. Inflation is a property of monetary flow, not how much gold has been discovered compared to how much production there is.
The gold standard did have some stabilization power on international exchange rates, but this was largely a false benefit. In many ways, the economic collapses caused by currencies have been far less painful and more easily recoverable from than the economic collapses caused by failed entire economies, operating under perverse incentives all in an aim to secure a better gold position.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I used 4% as a rough number and inflation has been around that number. I didn't even think to look online for a calculator. Apparently the historical inflation rate has been a little under 4%. Thanks for the info.
I wish I had more time to discuss the pros and cons of a gold/silver standard at length (I might next week after my finals are over) so I hope you will excuse me for bowing out at the moment.
quote:Lyrhawn : FDR was on the scene fixing the problem literally his first day in office. A do nothing president in this case would have been disastrous for the United States. It could have left many dead from starvation, or homeless (I should say, many MORE than there already were), and could have led to an eventual breakdown in basic services before it ever got better.
Oh yeah, the AAA was later declared unconstitutional.
The US government still pays farmers to not grow certain things. Do people in America die from food shortages today? Or is it because they can't afford to buy the food?
It was the unemployment rate that would have starved them. Millions couldn't afford clean water and food to eat for their families. FDR helped get them jobs, so they could afford to eat. The jacking up of the prices of foodstuffs made them easier to sell on the international market, and kept farmers in business. It would have served good for NO ONE for farmers to go out of business and grow NO food. I know it sounds callous to say that in a way, and it was considered callous back then too, that while many starved, the government destroyed food. But it was necessary to stablize the farm industry and ensure that food would continue to be grown. After the Depression when prices rose and more food as needed for the war, the AAA ordered a massive increase in farm production.
And it wasn't declared unconstitutional because of what it did, it was declared so because of the methods of taxation. It taxed others to provide the subsidies for the farmers. Later, when the subsidies came from a general tax on the population, the AAA was reestablished and the Supreme Court declared it constitutional.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't confirm that the US economy had recovered before WWII; I had always heard it recovered during this time -- but I'd be happy to see contrary information.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you're referring to what I said Will B, I never said it had totally recovered. He fixed much of what was wrong with it, and got it running on the right foot again, but WW2 spending is what blew the Depression out of the water.
Still, if Pearl Harbor had happened the month after the stock market crash and subsequent collapse, the US would have been hard pressed to immediately commit to war with the shape it was in. FDR got us prepped and ready to face any challenge.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK. I would agree that he got us prepped, but based on what I've heard so far, he didn't do it by ending the Depression. "Got it running on the right foot" would be a value judgment, I think, not something we could verify or disprove with data.
Certainly he got us prepped by military spending. And a good thing, too -- although I'm sure it's what prompted Pearl Harbor: Japan realizing that the US would likely interfere with its ambitions.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Which is why I specifically refuted what Rakeesh said earlier, that WW2 was not an automatic. Japan would never have attacked Pearl Harbor if FDR hadn't gotten us back on our feet. And I think you actually could make a case with decent data for the improvements he made. I'd need a couple weeks to get it together, which means quite frankly I won't do it. No offense but writing a research paper for Hatrack isn't the best use of my time.
He got banks back up and running, he restored consumer confidence in the bank so people would put their money there again. He stablized the price of food so farmers would keep growing, saving millions from starvation, also giving millions jobs in public works projects to improve infrastructure and get people working agian so they could eat. He got the manufacturing industry back up and running. One could make the argument that if he hadn't of spent eight years fixing the manufacturing infrastructure, there wouldn't have been enough capability to pump out ships and tanks to fight the war.
And likely, few others than FDR would have cut off shipments of oil and steel to Japan, as that was a rather large loss of income, which many blame for Japan's attack. Japan would have been loathe to attack the nation supplying them with oil and steel, especially if their manufacturing sector sucked as bad as it would have with a quarter of the nation's work force unemployed, and with few having any money to buy manufactured goods.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Party]](graemlins/party.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
