High_Gravity
Belligerent Drunk
- Nov 19, 2010
- 40,157
- 7,097
You could literally consider almost everyone of our Presidents a war monger, to be honest I don't want a pacifist as our President.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ronald Reagan would not get nominated in today's far rightwing Republican Party. And it is for just that reason why the Republican Party is in trouble in 2012. Until the GOP stops catering to the far rightwing of its party, it will not fair well with independents in the general elections. And that will result in 'no' Republican President in 2012.
Already it's starting - "We are going to have a choice of NOTHING in 2012. Aren't there any GOOD candidates out there running for President?"
It got me to thinking. Yes, it's tempting to compare today's candidates to the really good Presidents of past decades. But is that really a fair comparison? I guess what I am wondering about is this - is our almost universal dissatisfaction with current presidents and presidential candidates a function of their incapability or are they just as capable as ever, it's just that modern society has become so complex and so politically fragmented that their capabilities somehow fade away in the smoke and fog of all the b.s.?
To put it another way - how popular would Dwight Eisenhower, Ted Kennedy or Ronald Reagan be today if they held office in these troubled times?
I think that's an interesting thing to consider - how about you?
Already it's starting - "We are going to have a choice of NOTHING in 2012. Aren't there any GOOD candidates out there running for President?"
It got me to thinking. Yes, it's tempting to compare today's candidates to the really good Presidents of past decades. But is that really a fair comparison? I guess what I am wondering about is this - is our almost universal dissatisfaction with current presidents and presidential candidates a function of their incapability or are they just as capable as ever, it's just that modern society has become so complex and so politically fragmented that their capabilities somehow fade away in the smoke and fog of all the b.s.?
To put it another way - how popular would Dwight Eisenhower, Ted Kennedy or Ronald Reagan be today if they held office in these troubled times?
I think that's an interesting thing to consider - how about you?
ppssstt
TED was never president.
Apologies for the Ted Kennedy error in the OP - obviously I meant John F. and not Ted.
I had just finished reading the latest Ted Kennedy is a Jerk thread and his name was still fresh in my mind.
Apologies for the Ted Kennedy error in the OP - obviously I meant John F. and not Ted.
I had just finished reading the latest Ted Kennedy is a Jerk thread and his name was still fresh in my mind.
See we want the Constitution followed.
The Kennedy Administration pushed an economic stimulus program through congress in an effort to kick-start the American economy following an economic downturn. On February 2, 1961, Kennedy sent a comprehensive Economic Message to Congress which had been in preparation for several weeks. The legislative proposals put forward in this message included[12]:
(1.) The addition of a temporary thirteen-week supplement to jobless benefits,
(2.) The extension of aid to the children of unemployed workers,
(3.) The redevelopment of distressed areas,
(4.) An increase in Social Security payments and the encouragement of earlier retirement,
(5.) An increase in the minimum wage and an extension in coverage,
(6.) The provision of emergency relief to feed grain farmers, and
(7.) The financing of a comprehensive home-building and slum clearance program.[13]
Amendments to the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1961 greatly expanded the FLSA's scope in the retail trade sector and increased the minimum wage for previously covered workers to $1.15 an hour effective September 1961 and to $1.25 an hour in September 1963. The minimum for workers newly subject to the Act was set at $1.00 an hour effective September 1961, $1.15 an hour in September 1964, and $1.25 an hour in September 1965. Retail and service establishments were allowed to employ full-time students at wages of no more than 15 percent below the minimum with proper certification from the Department of Labor. The amendments extended coverage to employees of retail trade enterprises with sales exceeding $1 million annually, although individual establishments within those covered enterprises were exempt if their annual sales fell below $250,000. The concept of enterprise coverage was introduced by the 1961 amendments. Those amendments extended coverage in the retail trade industry from an established 250,000 workers to 2.2 million.
An Executive Order was issued (1962) which provided federal employees with collective bargaining rights.[23]
Scholarships and student loans were broadened under existing laws by Kennedy, and new means of specialised aid to education were invented or expanded by the president, including an increase in funds for libraries and school lunches, the provision of funds to teach the deaf, the handicapped, the retarded, and the exceptional child, the authorisation of literacy training under Manpower Development, the allocation of President funds to stop dropouts, a quadrupling of vocational education, and working together with schools on delinquency. Altogether, these measures attacked serious educational problems and freed up local funds for use on general construction and salaries.[27]
Unemployment and welfare benefits were expanded.[33]
In 1961, Social Security benefits were increased by 20% and provision for early retirement was introduced, enabling workers to retire at the age of sixty-two while receiving partial benefits.[34]
The Social Security Amendments of 1961 permitted male workers to elect early retirement age 62, increased minimum benefits, liberalized the benefit payments to aged widow, widower, or surviving dependent parent, and also liberalized eligibility requirements and the retirement test.[35]
The School Lunch Act was amended for authority to begin providing free meals in poverty-stricken areas.[37]
A pilot food stamp program was launched (1961), covering six areas in the United States. In 1962, the program was extended to eighteen areas, feeding 240,000 people.[38]
Employment of African-Americans in federal jobs such as in the Post office, the Navy, and the Veterans Administration as a result of the Kennedy Administrations affirmative action policies).[53]
The Clean Air Act (1963) expanded the powers of the federal government in preventing and controlling air pollution.
The first major additions to the National Park System since 1946 were made, which included the preservation of wilderness areas and a fund for future acquisitions.[77]
The water pollution prevention program was doubled.[78]
The Dems would be totally outraged if George Washington ran or Calvin Coolidge.
Would there be a contemporary Conservative supporting Lincoln? I doubt it! Lincoln fought a Civil war to preserve the federal union and sublimate state's rights.They go after Abe Lincoln like he was Sarah Palin
Plus, Lincoln was a brilliant thinker. Are you comparing Palin's intellect to Lincoln's? really?
He fought to preserve the constitution, so yes, Conservatives would support him.
See we want to Constitution followed. What we don't want is this corruption in the Federal Government that ever expands it to eliminate the liberties of men.
I am confident Lincoln would be fully supporting Conservatives as we uphold the Constitution.
He'd be as hosed as Obama is.
Now if we replaced the entire CONGRESS, SCOTUS and POTUS, we might have a chance in hell of solving things.
I'd propose the same congress, SCOTUS AND POTUS we had on Dec. 1, 1941.
Those guys were clearly NATIONALISTS.
Would there be a contemporary Conservative supporting Lincoln? I doubt it! Lincoln fought a Civil war to preserve the federal union and sublimate state's rights.
Plus, Lincoln was a brilliant thinker. Are you comparing Palin's intellect to Lincoln's? really?
He fought to preserve the constitution, so yes, Conservatives would support him.
See we want to Constitution followed. What we don't want is this corruption in the Federal Government that ever expands it to eliminate the liberties of men.
I am confident Lincoln would be fully supporting Conservatives as we uphold the Constitution.
There was no threat to the Constitution from the Confederacy.
He fought to preserve the constitution, so yes, Conservatives would support him.
See we want to Constitution followed. What we don't want is this corruption in the Federal Government that ever expands it to eliminate the liberties of men.
I am confident Lincoln would be fully supporting Conservatives as we uphold the Constitution.
There was no threat to the Constitution from the Confederacy.
Not after the ass-kicking the CSA, got, no.