Falcon (imported) wrote: Fri Jun 01, 2007 10:47 am
Sorry River ! George Dubya was born in Connecticut, and moved to Texas with the old man when he was two. I think it's reasonable that someone who lived in Texas since such an early age would have an accent, although Dubya's accent seems to thicken with the occasion.
Terry
My grandson was born in St Louis but he and his family was back in California within a year. He will grow up as a Californian, lived there all his life. Jr, is a Texan, been there his whole life.
There are five Presidents that a considerable number of historians consider to be failures--Grant, Harding, Hoover, Nixon, and Carter. Grant and Harding led adiminstrations in which there were major scandals, and neither accomplished much to offset the damage done by dishonesty of their subordinates. Hoover failed to deal with the depression which developed as the aftermath of the 1929 crash, and he also did little that was positive. Nixon, of course, was associated with obstruction of justice by members of his adminstration, and resigned as a result. Carter proved unable to deal with the Iran hostage problem, and the economy also was a problem in his administration.
Since there were three Presidents who were in office less than a year and a half--Garfield, Taylor, and William Henry Harrison--those three are usually not assessed by historians because the weren't in office long enough to have accomplished much or to have messed up noticeably. So, since there were a total of 42 men who served as President, (Cleveland is counted twice) there are actually thirty nine who are usually rated by historians.
Of those, there are the five failures I mentioned (not all are listed as failures by all historians) and there are about eight or ten first-rank Presidents. The other twenty-five or so are listed as mid-range Presidents.
Just above the failures are several who are considered near-failures--John Quincy Adams, Martin Van Buren, James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Lyndon Johnson (although some historians rate Lyndon Johnson among the top fifteen presidents.) These men were all highly unpopular, but didn't have any outstandingly bad things associated with their Presidencies.
I tend to think George W. Bush ranks among the near-failures, but fairly high among them. He messed up in invading Iraq, his administration had a botched response to the Katrina disaster, and very little effective legislation or policy initiatives can be credited to him. However, the economy has done well during his term, and, apart from the Katrina problem, his administration hasn't had any salient failures in the U.S. So, he's not very good, but I would guess he would rate something like thirtieth to thirty-third, somewhere in there, among Presidents. Much of his future reputation may actually be derived from what Roberts and Alito do on the Supreme Court.
It is true about George the second having been born and having had gone to school (but not all of it) in New England and also having attended Yale after attending one of the most prestigious high schools in Massachussetts just as his father and his father and his father before him. This indeed is a prince of enormous wealth and privilage. However all in all I had read somewhere that the Bush's enormous wealth and prosparity and also their clout have been quickly dwindling since the time of his grandfather Prescott Bush (a very prominent New York banker and United States senator from Connecticut during the war years). The Walkers from which he is from and where his "W" comes from were also another prominent family especially in the world of country club golf. Plus his wife Laura (who does have a legitimate accent) also hales from a very aristocratic pedigree but from the south.
Lets see if I remember Clintion did have a few things going on like beeing impeached.Interesting how messed up thies guys get when they get on the hill
sag111 (imported) wrote: Sun Jun 03, 2007 9:58 pm
Lets see if I remember Clintion did have a few things going on like beeing impeached.Interesting how messed up thies guys get when they get on the hill
An impeachment that should never have been started, that was nothing but a partisan witch hunt.
OK one example of the economic thing, in Clinton vs. B*sh2:
One baseball league, under Clinton's admin. that year., I cleared over $4k in sales.
This year, I'll be lucky to clear $1.5k, if that.
Same number of kids, give or take a dozen, which would amount to a maximum of $150 in sales.
The local league, which is actually UP in enrollment is down 60% in sales compared to last year, and down by DOUBLE the sales compared to when Clinton was in office. Again, about the same number of kids to photograph.
That's one example of one job from one worker.
Let's add that all up now and then say what a failure Clinton was. I shiver to think how much money this B*sh2 administration has cost me, and how much it's cost the whole working class of the nation.
Yet, not to mention his silly wars, they impeach Clinton over some sex.
Big fucking deal.
If getting B*sh2 a blowjob will turn the state of affairs around, shit, I'll go blow him for the national good!
My own opinion of Lincoln isn't nearly as high as that of most people. I think the war could have been over quickly, in a year and a half or so, if Lincoln had moved quickly to invade the Confederacy. He gave McClellan a year and a half to piddle around, and by that time Lee had built a Confederate army that was able to hold its own if it wasn't outnumbered and outgunned. Lincoln also failed to set up some type of administrative system to bring the South back into the Union, and the radicals in Congress and in his cabinet consequently were able to take revenge on southerners as a whole, and delay modernization of the South by several generations.
The war was finally won when Grant figured out that modern wars between states are contests between societies and economies rather than between armies, and he could simply use the productive capacity of the Union economy to club the South into military submission, which he and Sherman did very effectively.
Theodore Roosevelt was probably the best President--he effectively created the modern idea of the Presidency. Not actually sure whether that was good or bad.
Well I do disagree with you a bit, you forgot about Calvin Coolidge, Harding was dead within a year of becoming President. Carter was simply to nice a person to be President, but in his administration he did broker a peace treaty with Egypt and Israel, something no other person had been able to do in 3 or 4 thousand years. Nixon even with his leaving office as he did will still rank high, both Nixon and Carter have been ambassadors to the world for every president sense.
Worst Presidents, Grant, Coolidge
Clinton and his party let the Republicans impeach him, knowing they did not have enough votes to make it stick and it did finally shut them up.
Every good and great President has had in his terms of office a point in time were he had to draw a line in the sand, some knew just how long and deep to make that line and on which side to stand. That is what has made these men great or near great. Each and every one of them knew which battles to fight and which to let go.
Can anyone say this for Jr. He has always known how to draw a line in the sand, deep ones with no compromise. He fights every battle as if he is the only one that understands what needs to be done and if you disagree with him you are the enemy. I don't think history will be kind to Jr.
Clintion wasent impeached over sex but lying to the grand jury that is what got him in trouble.Should that have happened I say no as I did feel he was set up but again he set the table didnt he.Its kind of sad when a politican gets in trouble for lying as I realey dont think their is one of them on the hill that dosent need impeachin.
