Was Teddy Roosevelt The Greatest President?

  • 83 results
  • 1
  • 2
Avatar image for cgoodness
Cream_God

15519

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

100

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

Poll Was Teddy Roosevelt The Greatest President? (41 votes)

Yes 20%
No 71%
Not Sure/Undecided 10%

Discuss

 • 
Avatar image for vivide
Vivide

3278

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Andrew Jackson

did good and even had his own atrocity

Avatar image for batwatch
BatWatch

5487

Forum Posts

274

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 238

User Lists: 1

Teddy Roosevelt sucked. He was very charismatic and popular, but he was a dick.

I hesitated to make this comment because I know many are pro-Teddy fanboys, and I don't want to get caught up in an endless debate, but I guess I'll share my views anyway.

I've read two long books on Teddy Roosvelt, An American Lion and The Bully Pulpit. Both of these were sycophantically worshipful of Roosevelt, yet both of them left me wishing I could whack Teddy upside the head. (granted, he would have knocked my lights out for doing so, because he was a good fighter, but it would be worth it)

One of the major things I hate about Teddy Roosevelt which few people ever address was his war mongering ways summarized well in his statement, "I should welcome almost any war, for I think this country needs one." Teddy basically believed that American men must prove their manliness by killing people of other nations whenever they got the chance. This is why Teddy jumped at the chance to lead the Rough Riders, a volunteer brigade, in the invasion of Cuba. (a war of American aggression) Roosevelt wasn't enlisted in the military; he just wanted the chance to prove how tough he was in military conquest, and make no mistake, America and this time and later under Teddy's influence was definitely making conquests.

I'm also annoyed that Teddy Roosevelt abandoned his daughter to work out his emotional issues. Teddy's first wife died shortly after giving birth, so Teddy just left his newborn daughter with his sister, and took off West without any news of if or when he would ever come back. There, Roosevelt essentially ignored his life back home while throwing himself into the hobby of being a "cowboy" because riding on horses and sitting around a campfire is more pleasurable than dealing with emotional fallout from loss. After few letters and (I may be wrong on this point, but as I recall) no financial support, Teddy finally returned to pick up his daughter THREE YEARS LATER! I could understand maybe taking some time to clear your head before taking up parental responsibilities after such a major loss, but anybody who acts this way is a deadbeat dad.

Focusing on his Presidency, people usually point to Roosevelt's trust busting and environmental policies as his great accomplishments.

Without question, Teddy did oversee a lot of trust busting. Teddy lead the way in beating back the corporations and smashing them into tiny pieces. (a power not granted in any way, shape or form to the federal government in the Constitution) People who hate corporations usually love this and tout his actions as saving the Republic to which I say, "Thank God! Can you imagine what the United States would look like today if big corporations were everywhere buying political influence and creating monopolies? I'm so glad corporations like Wal-Mart, Comcast and Google don't exist!"

People act as if breaking up corporate power actually puts a stop to it, but that's nonsense. The anti-Constitutional trust busting power that existed then still exists now. Do you see a lack of corporate power? As the government broke down monopolies like Standard Oil into tinier corporations, those tinier corporations just conspired together to control the price of oil, and they kept making bank only this time they had tacit government approval. Nonetheless, these sorts of interferences certainly put a wrinkle in corporations' plans, so how did they respond to government regulations? They defended themselves by buying these regulators. If you have a regulated economy, then those with the most influence will influence the legislators to regulate in their favor. That is part of the reason that Hillary Clinton is expected to spend 2.5 billion in her election bid for 2016. Yay, for progress!

Then, there are Teddy's wonderful conservation effort. He started the trend of seizing lands from states that actually had the intention to use them for the profit of mankind and use them instead for glorified eye candy. Sure, 84 million acres of land set apart for no purpose seems like a waste, but isn't it great to know these lands are being allowed to stay in a state of nature? I guess it might seem so to people who've never actually been in nature where there are briars that tear your skin, animals that try to eat you and a profound lack of climate control and Netflix. All the wonderful wealth we have in society comes from utilizing nature, yet we are supposed to take pride in the fact that we've decided to be counterproductive with part of our resources? Why? Because nature is natural and it's only natural to love nature? Because Mother Gaea deserves some respect as if she is an actual living goddess who might smite us if we put in some irrigation to water her plants? Even if you but into the, "We need some places that are all natural," argument, is that really what you think you are getting in National Parks? Nature is uncleared underbrush and massive forest fires that consume everything in their path leaving nothing but charred Earth behind it, and we are getting some of that due to environmentalist who really are truly preserving a state of nature, but the vast majority of what people see of national parks are manicured lawns, carefully controlled wildlife populations, and a few choice vistas with tourist trap junk for sale. It's not nature; it's a facsimile of nature. National parks give us the feeling we are preserving nature without ever acknowledging that it's still human controlled. If you go deep into these national parks away from the beaten (and therefore unnatural) path, you will certainly see some beautiful sights mostly free from human intervention, but how many of us do that? For the vast majority of us, we will spend maybe a few days of our lives there in areas that could actually be cultivated for human use. I refuse to see the lack of irrigation, cultivation or population in great sections of the West and think, "I'm sure glad we aren't doing anything to make this place better."

I'm not saying cut down all trees and put pavement everywhere. All people, even libertarian wackos like me, do want some parks established, but why does the federal government get to steal state lands for this purpose? Why can't the individual states, who more closely represent the needs of the community, decide for themselves which areas to conserve and which areas to use? Some states have national park lands that are bigger than many entire states? How is it just for Texas to have a say in what lands Massachusetts can use and vice versa? Who gives the federal government the authority to seize lands for national parks? It's certainly not the Constitution.

That's enough rant for today.

Oh, and in general, Teddy was a snob who thought that the elites should make decisions for the common people.

Avatar image for batwatch
BatWatch

5487

Forum Posts

274

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 238

User Lists: 1

@vivide said:

Andrew Jackson

did good and even had his own atrocity

I'm not sure if you are being serious or not, but Andrew Jackson was a giant hothead who invaded a foreign nation against Presidential orders, killed many men for petty disputes in duels and popularized the concept of Manifest Destiny which lead directly to the Trail of Tears and the death of many innocent Native Americans.

In some ways, he's a small government guy which is kind of my thing, but I'm not willing to overlook the points I just mentioned to say he was a good President. He was our first thuggish President.

Avatar image for dshipp17
dshipp17

7648

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#54  Edited By dshipp17

I may be the lone vote, but I think that honor should go to Lyndon B. Johnson for his sincere efforts to eradicate poverty and racial discrimination. There are some very close seconds by a hair, though; FDR got us through a major world crisis. Abraham Lincoln presided over the civil war, but true history may say that ending slavery was actually an incidental concern of his. Other presidents just happened to be leaders at times conducive to being labeled as great, such as the case of George Washington.

Avatar image for jonez_
Jonez_

11499

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Nope. Andrew Jackson.

:p

Avatar image for lunacyde
Lunacyde

32410

Forum Posts

9520

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 4

#56 Lunacyde  Moderator

Not the best President....but quite possibly the coolest.

Avatar image for lunacyde
Lunacyde

32410

Forum Posts

9520

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 4

#57 Lunacyde  Moderator

He was a huge racist, he was a huge phony(he was a rich guy who lived in a log cabin for a year and then manufactured his phony tough guy image), he was a war monger...did I mention he was racist?

But he did bust up monopolies pretty well and fight for the American populous. I guess he's not all bad.

By this logic batman isn't tough either. just because you were born into a rich family doesn't mean that you can't be a tough SOB.

Avatar image for makhai
makhai

3389

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Lincoln or GTFO!

Avatar image for comicace3
comicace3

12438

Forum Posts

1465

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 1

#59  Edited By comicace3

@makhai said:

Lincoln or GTFO!

BOOOOO! FDR! FDR!

Avatar image for lunacyde
Lunacyde

32410

Forum Posts

9520

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 4

#60  Edited By Lunacyde  Moderator

@batwatch:

Then, there are Teddy's wonderful conservation effort. He started the trend of seizing lands from states that actually had the intention to use them for the profit of mankind and use them instead for glorified eye candy. Sure, 84 million acres of land set apart for no purpose seems like a waste, but isn't it great to know these lands are being allowed to stay in a state of nature? I guess it might seem so to people who've never actually been in nature where there are briars that tear your skin, animals that try to eat you and a profound lack of climate control and Netflix. All the wonderful wealth we have in society comes from utilizing nature, yet we are supposed to take pride in the fact that we've decided to be counterproductive with part of our resources? Why? Because nature is natural and it's only natural to love nature? Because Mother Gaea deserves some respect as if she is an actual living goddess who might smite us if we put in some irrigation to water her plants? Even if you but into the, "We need some places that are all natural," argument, is that really what you think you are getting in National Parks? Nature is uncleared underbrush and massive forest fires that consume everything in their path leaving nothing but charred Earth behind it, and we are getting some of that due to environmentalist who really are truly preserving a state of nature, but the vast majority of what people see of national parks are manicured lawns, carefully controlled wildlife populations, and a few choice vistas with tourist trap junk for sale. It's not nature; it's a facsimile of nature. National parks give us the feeling we are preserving nature without ever acknowledging that it's still human controlled. If you go deep into these national parks away from the beaten (and therefore unnatural) path, you will certainly see some beautiful sights mostly free from human intervention, but how many of us do that? For the vast majority of us, we will spend maybe a few days of our lives there in areas that could actually be cultivated for human use. I refuse to see the lack of irrigation, cultivation or population in great sections of the West and think, "I'm sure glad we aren't doing anything to make this place better."

First of all the presidential power to set aside lands for National Parks/Forests/Historical Sites/etc was granted by the Antiquities Act of 1906 which was passed by the Congress, which is given power by Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution to "Provide for the general welfare of the United States" and "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." National Lands have been set aside for the welfare of the people. These are thousands of miles of forest which provide oxygen to the environment, thousands of miles of lakes and rivers devoid of industrial pollution, places where endangered species congregate and biodiversity can be protected. Research on the benefits of contact with the natural environment show that it is likely to have a significant positive psychological effect, serving to reduce stress, anger, frustration and aggression, providing an opportunity for social bonding, and serving as a place for learning and mental stimulation.The shortsightedness of most individual humans is baffling, if it can't be measured in money or jobs apparently it doesn't provide a benefit. Regardless that is also false. Visitation, tourism, and jobs directly related to nearby public lands annually contribute billions to regional economies while creating hundreds of thousands of private sector jobs.

Secondly there are different varying levels of development allowed on Federal Lands depending on their designation. There are true "Wilderness Areas" which are free from development, as well as more well-developed areas built for the purpose of recreation, appreciating the visual splendor of these remarkable places, and even some areas which allow logging and mining as long as it is monitored and controlled. We've already seen what can happen when unfettered economic progress runs rampant. Ever heard of the Dust Bowl? The Dust bowl can be directly attributed to the overuse of land in order for agricultural production. Just look at other nations that slash and burn their forest for more cropland.They run into environmental disasters. We already produce more corn and soybeans than we even consume in the United States, that is why corn and soy is found in every processed food you can imagine, because we have such a surplus and it's so damn cheap. The United States at one point clear cut so much of it's forested land that we ran a genuine risk of decimating our forests faster than they could replenish. The introduction and utilization of concepts such as sustained yield and the setting aside of large areas of forest to be preserved and conserved combated this and avoided disaster.

You yourself say that we depend on natural Resources for our wealth and that utilizing nature is how we have gotten it. Does it not make sense to you then, that we should conserve those resources? Industry and corporations are historically notorious for the wanton destruction of natural resources, as well as caring more about this quarter's profits than sustainability. There are countless examples of companies disregarding the public welfare while blindly pursuing profit.

Just because you cannot see the value in preserving and preserving these areas from corporate, residential, and industrial development doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You may need climate control, television, and modern amenities, but some people (a lot of people) enjoy a chance to get away and enjoy the simpler pleasures in life. A lot of people enjoy being able to see a picturesque view, and soak in life away from the hectic lifestyle of city life. Development doesn't always make things "better", and "better" is a completely subjective term. The destruction of the environment that sustains us in pursuit of wealth is foolish. If we destroy the environment we won't survive and not having Netflix will be the least of your worries. "When the Last Tree Is Cut Down, the Last Fish Eaten, and the Last Stream Poisoned, You Will Realize That You Cannot Eat Money". Unfortunately most peope are too preoccupied with their level of comfort to realize this.

Avatar image for vivide
Vivide

3278

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@batwatch:

which president beat the bank during their lifetime?

which president shrugged off bullets?

Not many presidents can top Trail of Tears

Avatar image for kelevrasmashz28
KelevraSmashZ28

88

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Probably not the best but he is my favorite.

Avatar image for darling_luna
Darling_Luna

12918

Forum Posts

994

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 8

#63  Edited By Darling_Luna

Nah that would our 23rd President Valentine

Avatar image for biteme_fanboy
BiteMe-Fanboy

8951

Forum Posts

454

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

Damn sure isn't Lincoln.

Avatar image for ostyo
Ostyo

14103

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Reagan, Coolidge, Eisenhower, and Washington.

Avatar image for potatobaron
PotatoBaron

599

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

He was the manliest president

Millard Filmore was the best though

Avatar image for makhai
makhai

3389

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#67  Edited By makhai

@biteme_fanboy said:

Damn sure isn't Lincoln.

Clearly you never saw Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter.

Hater.

Avatar image for makhai
makhai

3389

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

@lunacyde said:

@batwatch:

Then, there are Teddy's wonderful conservation effort. He started the trend of seizing lands from states that actually had the intention to use them for the profit of mankind and use them instead for glorified eye candy. Sure, 84 million acres of land set apart for no purpose seems like a waste, but isn't it great to know these lands are being allowed to stay in a state of nature? I guess it might seem so to people who've never actually been in nature where there are briars that tear your skin, animals that try to eat you and a profound lack of climate control and Netflix. All the wonderful wealth we have in society comes from utilizing nature, yet we are supposed to take pride in the fact that we've decided to be counterproductive with part of our resources? Why? Because nature is natural and it's only natural to love nature? Because Mother Gaea deserves some respect as if she is an actual living goddess who might smite us if we put in some irrigation to water her plants? Even if you but into the, "We need some places that are all natural," argument, is that really what you think you are getting in National Parks? Nature is uncleared underbrush and massive forest fires that consume everything in their path leaving nothing but charred Earth behind it, and we are getting some of that due to environmentalist who really are truly preserving a state of nature, but the vast majority of what people see of national parks are manicured lawns, carefully controlled wildlife populations, and a few choice vistas with tourist trap junk for sale. It's not nature; it's a facsimile of nature. National parks give us the feeling we are preserving nature without ever acknowledging that it's still human controlled. If you go deep into these national parks away from the beaten (and therefore unnatural) path, you will certainly see some beautiful sights mostly free from human intervention, but how many of us do that? For the vast majority of us, we will spend maybe a few days of our lives there in areas that could actually be cultivated for human use. I refuse to see the lack of irrigation, cultivation or population in great sections of the West and think, "I'm sure glad we aren't doing anything to make this place better."

First of all the presidential power to set aside lands for National Parks/Forests/Historical Sites/etc was granted by the Antiquities Act of 1906 which was passed by the Congress, which is given power by Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution to "Provide for the general welfare of the United States" and "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." National Lands have been set aside for the welfare of the people. These are thousands of miles of forest which provide oxygen to the environment, thousands of miles of lakes and rivers devoid of industrial pollution, places where endangered species congregate and biodiversity can be protected. Research on the benefits of contact with the natural environment show that it is likely to have a significant positive psychological effect, serving to reduce stress, anger, frustration and aggression, providing an opportunity for social bonding, and serving as a place for learning and mental stimulation.The shortsightedness of most individual humans is baffling, if it can't be measured in money or jobs apparently it doesn't provide a benefit. Regardless that is also false. Visitation, tourism, and jobs directly related to nearby public lands annually contribute billions to regional economies while creating hundreds of thousands of private sector jobs.

Secondly there are different varying levels of development allowed on Federal Lands depending on their designation. There are true "Wilderness Areas" which are free from development, as well as more well-developed areas built for the purpose of recreation, appreciating the visual splendor of these remarkable places, and even some areas which allow logging and mining as long as it is monitored and controlled. We've already seen what can happen when unfettered economic progress runs rampant. Ever heard of the Dust Bowl? The Dust bowl can be directly attributed to the overuse of land in order for agricultural production. Just look at other nations that slash and burn their forest for more cropland.They run into environmental disasters. We already produce more corn and soybeans than we even consume in the United States, that is why corn and soy is found in every processed food you can imagine, because we have such a surplus and it's so damn cheap. The United States at one point clear cut so much of it's forested land that we ran a genuine risk of decimating our forests faster than they could replenish. The introduction and utilization of concepts such as sustained yield and the setting aside of large areas of forest to be preserved and conserved combated this and avoided disaster.

You yourself say that we depend on natural Resources for our wealth and that utilizing nature is how we have gotten it. Does it not make sense to you then, that we should conserve those resources? Industry and corporations are historically notorious for the wanton destruction of natural resources, as well as caring more about this quarter's profits than sustainability. There are countless examples of companies disregarding the public welfare while blindly pursuing profit.

Just because you cannot see the value in preserving and preserving these areas from corporate, residential, and industrial development doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You may need climate control, television, and modern amenities, but some people (a lot of people) enjoy a chance to get away and enjoy the simpler pleasures in life. A lot of people enjoy being able to see a picturesque view, and enjoy . Development doesn't always make things "better", and "better" is a completely subjective term. The destruction of the environment that sustains us in pursuit of wealth is foolish. If we destroy the environment we won't survive and not having Netflix will be the least of your worries. "When the Last Tree Is Cut Down, the Last Fish Eaten, and the Last Stream Poisoned, You Will Realize That You Cannot Eat Money". Unfortunately most peope are too preoccupied with their level of comfort to realize this.

No Caption Provided

Avatar image for mandarinestro
Mandarinestro

7651

Forum Posts

4902

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Avatar image for ccraft
ccraft

12437

Forum Posts

169

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 11

Avatar image for superguy1591
Superguy1591

7539

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

@lunacyde said:

@superguy1591 said:

He was a huge racist, he was a huge phony(he was a rich guy who lived in a log cabin for a year and then manufactured his phony tough guy image), he was a war monger...did I mention he was racist?

But he did bust up monopolies pretty well and fight for the American populous. I guess he's not all bad.

By this logic batman isn't tough either. just because you were born into a rich family doesn't mean that you can't be a tough SOB.

But, like I said, Teddy's tough guy routine came from only a year in a cabin after being told he was too soft to be president.

He he was a man who had to prove how manly he was to everyone because he was born into a rich family.

He's more Lex Luthor than Bruce Wayne.

Avatar image for superguy1591
Superguy1591

7539

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#72  Edited By Superguy1591

@dshipp17 said:

I may be the lone vote, but I think that honor should go to Lyndon B. Johnson for his sincere efforts to eradicate poverty and racial discrimination. There are some very close seconds by a hair, though; FDR got us through a major world crisis. Abraham Lincoln presided over the civil war, but true history may say that ending slavery was actually an incidental concern of his. Other presidents just happened to be leaders at times conducive to being labeled as great, such as the case of George Washington.

Johnson was a Texas Democrat(I know, but Southern Democrats were once Conservatives) and he didn't pass the CRA out sincerity--he passed it because he wanted "n!ggers to vote Democrat for the next 200 years."

Problem is that this kind of lost the Conservative vote when he passed the CRA, as conservatives all jumped over to the Republican seat. Eisenhower was more a man who genuinley believed segregation was unjust--he sent the NG to end segregation and protect the kids who broke the school color barrier in the south.

Avatar image for ccraft
ccraft

12437

Forum Posts

169

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 11

Avatar image for legacy6364
legacy6364

7622

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Avatar image for dngn4774
dngn4774

5622

Forum Posts

41

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 22

@superguy1591: Well in a way it worked. That decision basically flip-flopped the parties on geographical lines. It's the reason why republicans can't really claim that they're still the party of Lincoln, technically that's true but back then the people who would have voted Republican would be modern day Democrats and vice-versa.

Avatar image for superguy1591
Superguy1591

7539

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#76  Edited By Superguy1591

@dngn4774: Not really; Democrats had been gaining the Black vote for a while since FDR and it had reached it's zenith(before Obama) as what we recognize as the black majority under Kennedy.

The CRA and VRA only turned the Democratic Party into wha we know today--Liberals from North to South.

Avatar image for mandarinestro
Mandarinestro

7651

Forum Posts

4902

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Avatar image for masterkungfu
MasterKungFu

20773

Forum Posts

9757

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 11

greatest? dunno

Avatar image for ccraft
ccraft

12437

Forum Posts

169

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 11

#79  Edited By ccraft

@mandarinestro:

No Caption Provided

"You better churn that butter real nice and slow there darlin'..."

Avatar image for dshipp17
dshipp17

7648

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#80  Edited By dshipp17

@superguy1591 said:

@dshipp17 said:

I may be the lone vote, but I think that honor should go to Lyndon B. Johnson for his sincere efforts to eradicate poverty and racial discrimination. There are some very close seconds by a hair, though; FDR got us through a major world crisis. Abraham Lincoln presided over the civil war, but true history may say that ending slavery was actually an incidental concern of his. Other presidents just happened to be leaders at times conducive to being labeled as great, such as the case of George Washington.

Johnson was a Texas Democrat(I know, but Southern Democrats were once Conservatives) and he didn't pass the CRA out sincerity--he passed it because he wanted "n!ggers to vote Democrat for the next 200 years."

Problem is that this kind of lost the Conservative vote when he passed the CRA, as conservatives all jumped over to the Republican seat. Eisenhower was more a man who genuinley believed segregation was unjust--he sent the NG to end segregation and protect the kids who broke the school color barrier in the south.

The thing with using the Eisenhower example is he essentially did nothing; the Supreme Court was the catalyst for that incident. It's hard to say what Eisenhower's motives were, but it wasn't necessarily protecting the rights of African Americans; he necessarily was trying to have the Supreme Court order upheld or other policy orders; Eisenhower had plenty of time to address injustice long before the Supreme Court ruling and I believe lynchings were taking place during his administration; his actions could also tell me that he knew things were wrong in relation to African Americans, but lack the courage to take the initiative on the matter.

LBJ took initiative, however; there's just no sort of background to suggest a motive of courting the African American vote; their vote didn't matter at the time, both due to population and disenfranchisement. LBJ took an important stand that was necessary and still is necessary; he did things that are immediately tangible to the domestic problems: poverty and racism. Nixon than shifted us to this permanent twilight zone of diverting funds to foreign affairs whether than addressing poverty and racism in the United States; because of him, the dynamics are reversed: huge funds are diverted to foreign affairs with a fraction of funds and discussion devoted to domestic poverty, when huge funds and discussion should be devoted to domestic poverty and racism, as racism is slowly eradicated; Nixon just put us permanently back to the past way of thinking in this matter; and, on a side note, I think Nixon was responsible for de-emphasizing interest in science and technology in the form of the moon landings in favor of a more primitive form of the current petty politics; and none of the current candidates seem to have a clue about where our priorities should lie; they all seem to either have tunnel vision to foreign affairs or wasting years trying to figure out a way to more creatively engage in gridlock. LBJ was truly ahead of his time.

Contrary to what people think, Ronald Reagan actually instituted policies which fosters corporate abuse and deconstructed all forms of workers rights; this is even more insidious, considering that Reagan had a background in Union activities; I'm truly baffled by how so many people have drank the cool aid that is Reagan; he was simply the most charismatic president that we had in a long time, possibly ever. If we had more presidents and elected officials that processed things like LBJ, poverty could literally be eradicated in the United States; the funny thing is that presidents and elected officials are placed in office for that and related reasons, but priorities are all scrambled. Hillary Clinton is talking about the middle class, but there's still the elephant in the room that is poverty and racism; fixing the middle class should come next, although addressing poverty and racism is likely to have the side effect of fixing the middle class.

Avatar image for balee_dattttt
BALEE_DATTTTT

437

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Seriously though, all the Presidents were a bad idea. America never should have separated from the British.

Seriously, all they had to complain about was taxes on trivial stuff. Now they have school shootings, are involved in constant war, have a terrible economy and bad healthcare etc.

Tsk, tsk. The colonial masters were only trying to help.

Avatar image for iragexcudder
Iragexcudder

9464

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

He had the finest of spectacles

Avatar image for AssertingValor
AssertingValor

10853

Forum Posts

6403

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 65

Bush jr via Harold and Kumar