0.41 seconds

Robert Chung wrote:

Curtis L. Russell wrote:

On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 11:30:09 +0200, "Robert Chung"
wrote:


Grant was corrupt but if you're going down that road you'd have to
include Harding; no, I think simple corruption isn't quite enough. In
order to be the worst you have to be an "all-around" player.

Grant was not corrupt, although his administration certainly was.
Grant was never seen acting to enrich himself or his friends. OTOH, he
was a pathetic administrator and his some of his friends were more
than able to enrich themselves.

Grant died in the process of producing the book that prevented his
wife from being impoverished. Although I guess you could argue he was
corrupt, but too inept to do it well.


You're exactly right, and I stand corrected. I meant that Grant presided
over a corruption-riddled administration and he either did not or could
not see what was happening around him, not that he himself was corrupt.
Same goes for Harding (unless you think of having numerous dalliances as
corruption). Thanks for the catch.



I think in a sense the two issues (president and administration) have
to be considered together. Certainly Nixon was probably as personally
corrupt or more than Grant or Harding, but undoubtedly accomplished more
than either. I seem to remember a quote about Harding from his
father--something to the effect of "it's a good thing he wasn't born a
girl--he'd always be in a family way".
Certainly Fillmore, Pierce and Buchanan were all considered
mediocrities at best, and then of course there's Andrew Johnson and
Grant. That's a pretty long stretch of mediocrity or worse, interrupted
only by Lincoln. (not that Hayes or Garfield were stars either).

Steve

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

gwhite wrote:


TritonRider wrote:

From: "Robert Chung"

The questions you've listed are merely side issues that detract

from the real question, the central question in this entire debate: is he

the worst President ever, or only somewhere in the top three?



Not even close, but maybe top 10.
Andy jackson, Hoover and Grant pop to mind quickly for top 3.


FDR would have to be the worst, bar none. Our government is not supposed to
establish any religion. FDR got away with establishing socialism, which is
nothing but a religion. It is a persistant festering sore which continues to
infect/affect the USA to this day.

Today we are so infected with socialism that it is impossible to have a
reasonable political discussion without superstitions like "social justice,
social engineering, social responsibility," and on and on, creeping into our
consideration. These considerations are usually taken as axiomatic reasonable!

The Fatal Conceit [Hayek] is the presumption and acceptance that our
civilization is "designed" by humans and has a "purpose" (the essence of the
religious and irrational nature of socialism), and that we can further "improve
upon the design of our society." The presumption that because humans can design
small things, they can also "design and set purpose to the whole," is the
grandest fallacy of composition ever committed.

We can tie this religious belief to socialist thinkers. Take Einstein, for
example, and his teleological argument for the existance of god.
http://www.philosophos.com/knowledge...ions_2496.html

It is not hard to see why an arguer for/of "intelligent design" like Einstein
would be attracted to the religion of socialism, which by definition teaches
"intelligent design." Again it is the "intelligent design" religious belief (no
basis in fact) that is the foundation of socialism.

FDR gets #1 for the lasting violation of the #1 amendment. People are granted
the right to worship socialism in their neighborhood churches/temples/mosques,
but not to coerce those views upon their fellow citizens.



"Set my people free." -- Moses


"The idea of Socialism is at once grandiose and simple.... We may say,
in fact, that it is one of the most ambitious creations of the human spirit,
so magnificent, so daring, that it has rightly aroused the greatest
admiration. If we wish to save the world from barbarism we have to
refute Socialism, but we cannot thrust it carelessly aside."
-- Ludwig von Mises


“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

That's why GWB is going to work so hard to abolish that bad, bad social
security system.

Steve

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS wrote:

gwhite wrote:

....
"The idea of Socialism is at once grandiose and simple.... We may say,
in fact, that it is one of the most ambitious creations of the human spirit,
so magnificent, so daring, that it has rightly aroused the greatest
admiration. If we wish to save the world from barbarism we have to
refute Socialism, but we cannot thrust it carelessly aside."
-- Ludwig von Mises


“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

That's why GWB is going to work so hard to abolish that bad, bad social
security system.

Imagine the puzzled look on your patient's faces when you inform them a little
abscess is healthy for them.

Robert Chung wrote:

TritonRider wrote:
From: "Robert Chung"

The questions you've listed are merely side issues that detract
from the real question, the central question in this entire debate: is
he the worst President ever, or only somewhere in the top three?

Not even close, but maybe top 10.
Andy jackson, Hoover and Grant pop to mind quickly for top 3.

Hoover, top 3? Ouch. That's harsh. I think he's unfairly maligned; he
didn't have the data or tools he needed--which is not to say that if he
did have the data and tools, he would have done the right things, just
that he gets an incomplete on that score.

We're all dead in the long run. Right?

GWB ignores data he has
available, and misuses tools in his hands.

Is it time for you to post your "question" again?

gwhite wrote:


Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS wrote:

gwhite wrote:


...

"The idea of Socialism is at once grandiose and simple.... We may say,
in fact, that it is one of the most ambitious creations of the human spirit,
so magnificent, so daring, that it has rightly aroused the greatest
admiration. If we wish to save the world from barbarism we have to
refute Socialism, but we cannot thrust it carelessly aside."
-- Ludwig von Mises


“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

That's why GWB is going to work so hard to abolish that bad, bad social
security system.


Imagine the puzzled look on your patient's faces when you inform them a little
abscess is healthy for them.

I guess that's why I have the licence--whoops--socialism again!

Steve

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

gwhite wrote:

Is it time for you to post your "question" again?

http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/...owth_aug04.png ?

Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS wrote:

gwhite wrote:


Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS wrote:

gwhite wrote:


...

"The idea of Socialism is at once grandiose and simple.... We may say,
in fact, that it is one of the most ambitious creations of the human spirit,
so magnificent, so daring, that it has rightly aroused the greatest
admiration. If we wish to save the world from barbarism we have to
refute Socialism, but we cannot thrust it carelessly aside."
-- Ludwig von Mises


“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

That's why GWB is going to work so hard to abolish that bad, bad social
security system.


Imagine the puzzled look on your patient's faces when you inform them a little
abscess is healthy for them.

I guess that's why I have the licence--whoops--socialism again!


Scary stuff.

Robert Chung wrote:

gwhite wrote:

Is it time for you to post your "question" again?

http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/...owth_aug04.png ?

Thanks.

"Tom Kunich" wrote:

The ANG was highly unlikely to have a Selectric in 1972. For crying out
loud, I didn't even see one until the mid-80's in anything but huge
companies. Selectrics were extremely expensive for typewriters and were
generally only available for the bosses private secretary at large
companies.

You must mean a Selectric Composer. At least I hope you do, because
even my public middle school had a typing class in 1980 using plain old
type-ball Selectrics. Not that I think any of this **** matters.
At bottom, everyone is arguing about whether a putative decades-old memo
_proves_ something that they all more or less assume to be true
(GWB had a easy time in the ANG). It's funny hearing the same people
that tolerated that Swift Boat Veterans ad go off about standards of
historical accuracy. I'm not voting on the grounds of what happened
in 1972, anyway. I have enough evidence from the last four years to
make up my mind on the candidates.

Benjamin Weiner wrote:


I have enough evidence from the last four years to
make up my mind on the candidates.

Yeah, I'll probably vote for Badnarik too.