It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Which US President have you been satisfied with, and why?

page: 3
9
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 08:50 PM
link   
Is this in our lifetimes? Or looking back on history?




posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 08:54 PM
link   
Andrew Jackson, he defeated the banks. Thomas Jefferson, opposed federalist policies, George Washington for his non-interventionist foreign policy.



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 09:18 PM
link   
This is a very interesting question because like so many things, my ability to evaluate a President is always enhanced by hind-site. Case in point: I was very shocked to say the least when I read SO MUCH from a wide range of people about what a vindictive ass LBJ was. Nixon loved to sick the IRS on his enemies, LBJ would use any and all resources to nail his “enemies”. (His relationship with Hoover was, “extra-legal" in my view) I really admired his pushing of the 1965 civil rights act, even though I felt a lot of it was for political reasons, not out of the goodness of his heart... Nixon was so consumed with his own insecurity, despite the fact he set in motion such agencies as the EPA, and did a lot to end the draft (which Ford got understandable credit for, it was Nixon who decided that we should not drag people kicking and screaming in to the military). Wow, makes sense to me.

Reagan was a good President if for no other reason, he was conviction driven by our potentials, not faults. Most important after the debacle of the Carter Presidency (don’t get me started on his selling F-14’s to Iran, or “wishing the USSR would be nice if we were, right...)" or mentioning the stealth project near the end of the campaign with Reagan so he would look 'tough” on defense, know about that gang? It was picked up by only a few media groups at the time, (prehistoric, aka:before cable/net, etc) but my God, in my mind saying something like that for ANY let alone political reasons is in my mind treasonous... Most important? Reagan made us, he made ME feel good again about being an American. Like the guy or not, Christ did we need that after the god-awfull and depressing 1970’s.

My favorites? I liked Truman despite the fact he had a problem with some FDR people who where damn near left of Lenin, still in office in his administration. But, he had balls, and said what he meant. I like that. And he had the personality to scare people by a look, no games, just a look. Now thats power! Also really pissed off a lot of people by kicking off the civil rights movement, at an official level, in a way only a President could: He desegregated the armed forces by Executive Order. Very cool. But my favorite was Ike. He was not the “doting elderly man who only played a lot of golf" [sure, he liked to play, and was good at, golf, who the hell cares)? He sent the army into the South (pissed them off for over a generation against the GOP) when a state governor, with others watching would not follow the law, and allow a black man or anyone not “our people," ah white, to attend a public university. Not to mention problems with public schools in general.

But his main insight was a warning many did not notice in 1960 when he warned us of the power of the “military-industrial complex" the cozy [hell think kinky sex) relationship of the government, in particular military/intelligence and private industry which by the way ARE NOT restrained by such pain in the ass stuff like the Constitution, most importantly the Bill of Rights. Worry about the government following the Constitution? We have a whole lot more to worry about, and Ike knew the no-rules followed by the powerful, corrupt elements of corporate/industry and rich individuals. No, not all are like that by any means. But he knew SOME where. No doubt Ike would be shocked at the immense power now, of non-regulated private groups, and those politicians who suckle at their tits. A lot worse now.

Ike created the interstate highway system (check out old documents, their labeled the “interstate highway defense system”. A way to move equipment and troops anywhere anytime fast, and harder to take out (a lot harder) then rail routs used for freight, etc. And if you can use the highway to get to work, or see grandma on occasion, well great. It was not built for that at first, but it was known it would help the economy. Oh, that was a massive government infrastructure program, in case anyone missed it. (As was the power grid, and even ATT, though a “private” company its relationship with the government was , lets say intimate. Many things we think of as “private ventures” would not have happened without an “understanding we give you the way to make gazillions of $$, you do some things for us, (Feds) As with ATT some are still secret, I could go on and on.

Yeah he blew it by not seeing the impact of Sputnik in ’57, but that was because Ike knew there was a missile gap, but IN OUR favor, but Nixon could not use it, and to his credit for security reasons didn’t against Kennedy. (yes I am glad Kennedy won in 1960, even if the mob did “help a bit", we would have had WW-3 in 1962 during the Cuba thing had Nixon been in office, buts thats ONLY MY opinion, based on personalities and motivations of Nixon vrs Kennedy) Plus Kennedy got us the moon in less then a decade, perhaps the greatest technological achievement. So, I”ll wait to judge our President, not that I don’t have an opinion now. It can change.
edit on 6/9/11 by arbiture because: Spelling failed me, this is news to anyone?



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Kitilani
 


the people with any brains whatsoever on here would say that 4000 ameircans dying in a sinlge attack was a #ty hand.

the falied foreign policy under clinton which led to 9-11 which woke the sheep of this country that we have been at war for decades but it wasnt clinton it was bush and it isnt obama the only president to have ever called it what it was a war.

they would also say the failed policies of the past 60 years coming to a head was also a #ty hand to be dealt

but hey lets make this about bush
edit on 6-9-2011 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Kitilani
 


the people with any brains whatsoever on here would say that 4000 ameircans dying in a sinlge attack was a #ty hand.


That happened after Bush took office. It was not handed to him.


the falied foreign policy under clinton which led to 9-11 which woke the sheep of this country that we have been at war for decades but it wasnt clinton it was bush and it isnt obama the only president to have ever called it what it was a war.


I love you so much. Two months into Obama's presidency and you start crying "Stop blaming Bush he is not in office anymore" and then go on to blame Clinton for things that happened under Bush. You crack me up. Still waiting for that detailed list of what Bush was handed.


they would also say the failed policies of the past 60 years coming to a head was also a #ty hand to be dealt


I have no issue with that. I am not sure how that helps you put the blame all on Clinton though.


but hey lets make this about bush
edit on 6-9-2011 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

You mean instead of making it about Clinton?

Hey I was talking about Reagan until someone else brought Bush up so take it up with them.
edit on 6-9-2011 by Kitilani because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 09:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by Kitilani
reply to post by PW229
 


Yeah Reagan was a real hardcore badass for talking with the Russians unlike that wuss Obama that suggested talking with our enemies right?


You mean like how Clinton talked to Osama right?






Ummm besides bashing a Democrat what is your point? What the hell does that have to do with Reagan? Seriously, what is your point? I do not get it all. I agreed with the righties that Reagan was great and ended the cold war with talking. Bash Clinton all day long if that helps you out but that means nothing to what I said. Nothing at all. The righties are the ones praising his TALKING to our enemies. I am just agreeing with them.



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


reply to post by SLAYER69
 


What is wrong with you two exactly? I said I like Reagan and all you can respond with is that Clinton sucked?
Whatever.



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 09:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Kitilani
 



Do yourself a favor and stop assuming I'm a "Rightie" I bash ALL sides left, right and center and often do.


Semper fi


edit on 6-9-2011 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kitilani
reply to post by PW229
 


Yeah Reagan was a real hardcore badass for talking with the Russians unlike that wuss Obama that suggested talking with our enemies right?

I just really love how the righties that love Reagan so much rail against the exact same crap he did and was for now.


It's not "talking to your enemy" per se, it's WHAT you say and HOW you say it that matters, and which mark the difference between the two.



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 09:58 PM
link   
Though he was before my time, my favorite president is Theodore Roosevelt. He is what I think a model conservative should be. He started a bust the trust campaign that targeted monopolies and crony capitalists. Real capitalism requires access to fair and free markets. He put America first and had a vigorous and successful foreign policy.

He won the Nobel peace prize for actually doing some good in his negotiations to end the Japanese-Russian war and he was the first true conservationist president and created some of our great national parks. He also oversaw America's rise to a true world military and financial power and had the foresight to vastly build up our navy and then built the Panama canal so that we could move our fleet around. Moreover he fought tooth and nail against a central bank, which his successor eventually passed to our ultimate detriment.

The guy was a real positive masculine role model, when today that is unacceptable in a brainwashed post-feminist world. During a stump speech, an assassin shot Teddy. When Teddy noticed that he wasn't coughing up blood, he figured he would survive and finished his 3 hour long speech, refusing medical care until he was done!



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 10:10 PM
link   
Being 30 years old, There isn't a president that I'm satisfied with in office since I've been alive. If I had to choose, I guess I would choose Regan as the lesser of 5 evils.

The "Greatest Generation" handed this country over to the "Lamest Generation" IMO. No personal offense to those 60 and older. Its just in my opinion, this country has slowly gone downhill since I was a kid.



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kitilani
I agreed with the righties that Reagan was great and ended the cold war with talking. Bash Clinton all day long if that helps you out but that means nothing to what I said. Nothing at all. The righties are the ones praising his TALKING to our enemies. I am just agreeing with them.


Some of us are acutely aware that there was more than mere "talking" going on at the time. Sure, there WAS talking, but there was also a lot of doing. Reagan himself wasn't out there toting a gun and popping shots, but it was being done nonetheless, in many cases at his direction, while he was putting on the public talking face.

Ever hear of Afghanistan? This ain't our first bout in that rodeo. Similarly, there were small actions on a number of fronts world wide countering Soviet moves and stymieing them. The talking just let them know there was a way out of the mess.

Now, to be honest, all that action can't be laid at Reagan's feet - it had been going on since at least 1946 (in Italy and Eastern Europe), a real live small-scale shooting war that rarely ever made the headlines, but was no less real for all that. Africa, Central America... at any one time in the Reagan years, there were as many as 40 separate little brushfire wars going on, all "small scale actions" in the larger Cold War. Same thing went on under Carter, much to his consternation. Reagan just made better use of it.



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu
Some of us are acutely aware that there was more than mere "talking" going on at the time. Sure, there WAS talking, but there was also a lot of doing. Reagan himself wasn't out there toting a gun and popping shots, but it was being done nonetheless, in many cases at his direction, while he was putting on the public talking face.


In his direction? The Russians were shootin' at Reagan? When the hell did that happen?
You seem confused. Either he talked or he did not talk. I say he did. You say he did. So what you are trying to "correct" me on is lost.



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 10:44 PM
link   
Washington - set many standards that most failed to follow, kinda sorta Jefferson - doubled the size of the country despite his ideological questions about it (practical) but had poor economic policy(embargo act),

maybe Monroe-era of good feelings, John Quincy Adams -underrated bc he did not have a rockstar personality, Jackson - reasons mentioned in posts above,

kinda sorta Lincoln - kept the Union in tact but temporarily shredded the Constitution to do so and set up federal domination and corporate dominance(but not on purpose -keeping the Union intact is a big one in the positive column)

TR - his practical and ethical balance of pro-business and progressivism. Also put US on map militarily but did not go to war -unless you count Phillipines insurrection


Kinda sorta FDR - set up the dependency systems still in place and bankrupting the nation, but he also managed a balancing act during a very difficult time. I have a very tough time saying FDR was a great prez, but it is a hard argument to make that he was not a great leader in many ways. Like Lincoln a lot of the ills that sprang from his actions did not begin to show until long after his terms.

JFK - this one is more about the "dream" of a great president. If he wasn't martyred, chances are his weaknesses would've overshadowed his strengths. But he definitely defied the CIA and the Joint Chiefs from starting a nuclear WW3 and that is worth putting him on the list. he may have also died for those actions(that debate for another forum).

No great presidents since then. My arguments against some mentioned on here. And not from a "rightie" or "leftie" position. Just my take on it, which if you had that and a nickel, you could buy five pennies:

Reagan - he had a large personality and was great with speeches -made people feel good about themselves. The CIA "secret war" apparatus expanded greatly under his 2 terms. The failed drug war (started under Nixon) was really ramped up, hence more domestic police state apparatus and spending. Phony claims of "winning the Cold War". Russia's socialist economy destroyed itself along with help of funneling money into an unwinnable war in Afghanistan. He greatly expanded unsustainable debt and also oversaw banking scandals that were not properly dealt with (because they owned him like they do everyone else).

HW - continuation of Reagan. Possibly Reptilian


Clinton - Ruby Ridge, Waco. Upsurge of police state tactics and propaganda, esp after OKBomb. Attacks on 2nd amendment rights. Repeal of Glass Steagall + pressure on Fannie Freddie to make bad loans + "Free Trade" agreements = a major part of the 2008 meltdown and the destruction of the US manufacturing base. Clinton did nothing to help the economy during the 90s. There was a tech boom that had nothing to do with him. Also, it must be nice to serve in between the Cold War and the Global War on Terror.

W & Obama - Gog and Magog perhaps? - I think we know how bad these two idiots were/are.
edit on 6-9-2011 by radosta because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by Kitilani
 



Do yourself a favor and stop assuming I'm a "Rightie" I bash ALL sides left, right and center and often do.


Semper fi


edit on 6-9-2011 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)


Keep telling yourself that and I will do my best not to read any more of your right wing posts.



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

It's not "talking to your enemy" per se, it's WHAT you say and HOW you say it that matters, and which mark the difference between the two.



Who was disputing that?

This thread is just about arguing over nothing I see.



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kitilani
Keep telling yourself that and I will do my best not to read any more of your right wing posts.


You want right wing?

I'll give you right wing. Here is Bush I mean Clinton and his Environmental Flunky talking about Iraq and WMDs.


The Inconvenient Democrats Truth



This one gets interesting around 3:05



This one gets interesting around 0:53

edit on 6-9-2011 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kitilani

Originally posted by nenothtu
Some of us are acutely aware that there was more than mere "talking" going on at the time. Sure, there WAS talking, but there was also a lot of doing. Reagan himself wasn't out there toting a gun and popping shots, but it was being done nonetheless, in many cases at his direction, while he was putting on the public talking face.


In his direction? The Russians were shootin' at Reagan? When the hell did that happen?


At his direction, not in his direction!
That's why I like you, you can make ANY discussion fun!




You seem confused.


Oddly, you're not the first who has told me that...




Either he talked or he did not talk. I say he did. You say he did. So what you are trying to "correct" me on is lost.


Yup, we agree that he talked, I'm just pointing out that there was more to it than that. Talking works well in some cases, while others require talking and beating folks senseless with a big stick occasionally.

Edit to add:


Originally posted by Kitilani

Originally posted by nenothtu

It's not "talking to your enemy" per se, it's WHAT you say and HOW you say it that matters, and which mark the difference between the two.



Who was disputing that?

This thread is just about arguing over nothing I see.


You're right (no insults to your political orientation intended...
) that's what makes it fun! a pure opinion piece, no holds barred!





edit on 2011/9/6 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 11:22 PM
link   
Clinton, just because their was so much work during his 8 years, and not to mention the headlines news was all about him and a intern...

Much simpler times....

Was a good President in my book..

No matter how much people hated him, I am betting allot of folks are missing him in 2011...



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 11:32 PM
link   
Ive been not been satisfied with Bush Sr, Clinton, Bush Jr. and Obama. The bashing of U.S. Presidents is orchestrated by the U.S. enemies. One man cant change a nation. Change needs to come from each individual. The U.S. is descending because its people have become too complacent.




top topics



 
9
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join