Nixon is an interesting case. Today, we associate his name primarily with Watergate. In his first term, his approval ratings were high, averaging 56%. (For comparison Obama is currently around 44%, Bush averaged 49%, Clinton 55%. So Nixon was considered as good as Obama is bad, and slightly better than Clinton.)

Surveys of historians suggest that Nixon was one of the brighter and more capable presidents but Watergate has completely overshadowed that. I suppose it goes to show it doesn't matter how smart you are or how well you do, if you can't be trusted that's all that matters. Nixon was probably smarter and more capable than 99% of us, but that didn't matter after he was dishonest. We could learn from his mistakes.

Sure, he sent guns to the Mexican Drug cartels, he sent drones to Pakistan after we killed Osama and the reason things are locked up is because of him.

Glad to have you back. I missed you. I'm going to stay out of the political debates on GFY. I have learned a lot from them, which is the best part

Nixon was the best at foriegn affairs, loved the flash of his peace signs while we were fighting in Vietnam.

Obama, Clinton a close second.

Leslie Nielsen ...

Andrew Jackson

Economics and Glasnost

I don't like what he did to the native americans, but the fact he was in real duels is pretty cool

Best
 

David Rice Atchison may have served 1 day according to the State Department. Don't think he even knew it. So no harm, no foul.

Lincoln & FDR saved this county. Read their stories. Lincoln fought every day to save the Union, had to fight his on Cabinet. FDR almost had to send Henry Ford & crew to prison, as they wanted a dictatorship based on what Hitler had in Germany.

Reagan trained and gave weapons to Afghans, Angolaians and Nicaraguas.

I don't agree with the war, but being that we are at war, I agree with his no pussy footing around attitude. The Countries that harbor bad guys have already been warned, and congress has already approved this war on terrorism. So really no reason to fuck around.

It was the Republicans that said they would do everything they could to make sure Obama fails, vote everything down, be against anything he does, even before he did anything, they started. All without regards to American's or our Country. So yeah, you could say it's because of him, but it's not his fault, and that's all that matters.


I typically go on and off with gfy... depending on what time of year it is :)

Weren't the Afghans defending themselves against the USSR at the time? Who are the Mexican Drug cartels protecting themselves from?

So it's ok to attack any country we want? Thats what got us in that mess oin the first place isn't it?
Or is this of those because the GOP did it, it's ok?

Reagan worked with the democrats and Clinton worked with the GOP, what they didn't do was bash the other party and blame the other party in every speech.

Next time you get to LA, please let me know.

SLICK WIlly CLinTon !

http://partisanmeme.com/images/bill-...oman-thumb.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuel_...rule_of_Panama
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign..._Latin_America

Under him the CIA trained bin laden. The largest tax increases in peace time,started the biggest fucking of the middle class and the wonderful meese commission. Give me a Teddy or a Franklin.

The current political process does not allow the possibility of a great president. Not only would FDR, JFK and other great Presidents have been unelectable under the current campaigning rituals, they would never have even considered running for office. No sane person wants to campaign for three years, have ever family secret exposed, spend their lives chasing corporate dollars and dutifully supporting the people paying their bills whethere they agree with them or not... People like Mike Bloomberg have the possibility of being a great president, but the electoral system is geared to attract asshats like Donald Trump instead.

It is destroying our nation rapidly and the people who would have to fix it are the same ones directly benefiting from how brokn it is... So that fix becomes less likely every cycle.

G W Bush. No doubt.

Very true , well said :thumbsup

Mike Bloomberg would be a disaster. fuck that guy.

I agree with the second part.

:Oh crap

Newt and Clinton worked well together? All Newt did was talk shit about Clinton, pushed for impeachment on doing the same shit he was doing and now takes credit for Clintons ideas. Give me a fucking break.

Weren't we basically funding Bin Laden? Didn't we do this to try and "beat" the Russians? Isn't that what they goal was with the cartels, to learn more so we can beat them? Yep..... Did both end up funding, helping, and basically fucking things up more? Yep....



Well yeah, that's why Iraq was wrong. But we didn't attack Pakistan.... so your question is a bit pointless. Bush's lies is what got us to attack the entire Country of Iraq. What's happened in Pakistan is nothing like Iraq.



Great, Obama "IS" working with both parties... however, one party "REFUSES" to work with him. Everyone, including you, would bitch about that if it was happening to you.

Lol, every speech... not even close, not even most... but I can understand why he does, the Reps want nothing he does and expect him to do everything they say. Fact is, Americans deserve to know that the Republicans are part of the problem, not the solution.

It is funny that you think Obama is FULLY at fault, when the Reps have stated this is the #1 agenda for them, from day 1, before he actually did anything. They don't care about the state of the country, jobs, housing, etc... as they said the #1 goal is to make sure Obama does nothing and can't be reelected.... #1 goal, #1 priority, the focus is Obama - those are words the Reps have used.

Reagan? Reagan was a pure puppet who sold away the future on his promise of imperial borrowing...or Reagonomics

Only as much as Obama trained Napoleon. In other words, not at all. Obama went to France. Napoleon was in France. Neither has anything to do with the other.

The US trained some Afghans. bin Laden was in Afghanistan. That does not mean we trained bin Laden. Not any more than Obama trained Napoleon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_%E2...en_controversy

"n mid-1979, about the same time as the Soviet Union deployed troops into Afghanistan, the United States began giving several hundred million dollars a year in aid to the Afghan Mujahideen insurgents fighting the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan and the Soviet Army in Operation Cyclone. Along with native Afghan mujahideen were Muslim volunteers from other countries, popularly known as Afghan Arabs. The most famous of the Afghan Arabs was Osama bin Laden, known at the time as a wealthy and pious Saudi who provided his own money and helped raise millions from other wealthy Gulf Arabs.

As the war neared its end, bin Laden organized the al-Qaeda organization to carry on armed jihad in other venues, primarily against the United States — the country that had helped fund the mujahideen against the Soviets."


"The BBC, in an article published shortly after the 9/11 attacks, stated that bin Laden "received security training from the CIA itself, according to Middle Eastern analyst Hazhir Teimourian

In a 2003 article, Michael Powelson of the Russian journal Demokratizatsiya wrote:

It is difficult to believe that the United States played no role in the operations of the son of one of the wealthiest men in Saudi Arabia. Indeed, it is much more likely that the United States knew full-well of bin Laden's operation and gave it all the support they could.[2]"



The CIA denies directly training Bin Laden (because they don't know if they did or didn't, indirectly or not).... then again, they don't deny the money, arms, and the training the DID fund, they just deny doing it directly.... duh.

Back to the Mexican cartels, you're saying we gave them assault weapons to find out more about them? 34,000 people have died in drug related murders in Mexico in the last 4 years.
You really think I back this?

I hate that the US gets involved in any wars, but giving guns to drug cartels, right across the border?

ok, I'm done with this thread, I promised myself I would stay out of political threads, I really started this thread to give some honor to some of the presidents we have had in the past. Everyone knows how I feel about the present administration, and it's not just the president, I don't like any of the 435 in the house of representives, 100 senators, some of the supreme justices, I mean one just put down the constitution?

No, I'm not saying that... that's what the Gov said the reason was.

You act like they didn't already have machine guns and everything else under the sun.

So like 1/3 of the Iraqi's?

I never said you backed it or anyone should, I compared it us giving other Countries weapons, which "have" killed countless Americans. You're trying to create a separation of the two, when they're the same. The only difference is you agree with one President and not the other.


Is that anything like, funding the people that end up running planes into us? Has Mexico attacked "America" with our guns, did we give them hundreds of millions if money, guns, training, etc? I think not....

I still think presidents are just good old fashioned puppets.

they invaded us!

who fucking cares?

bla bla bla...

arguing about politics on gfy is like beating your head against the wall.

pointless and retarded.

We're not arguing, we're discussing. The ones that argue are the ones that say well Bush did it, so it's ok, who said it was ok when he did it?

So do we call you naut or just x?

Lol, no... they without question did not invade us. Where do you get this shit?

But, just to be sure I'll look out the Window. *checking* .... I don't see an invading army, all is quite on this front.

Invade means, to occupy a country/region, place, etc... in larger numbers, normally with an intrusive effect. America "invades" other Countries.... Mexico, not so much.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/fed-...cinco-de-mayo/


Fed Judge: Calif. School Was Right to Forbid Students’ American Flag T-Shirts on Cinco de Mayo

I don't know where you live, but this is where I live, California.

You quoted the invaded part and then posted this?

That's not an invasion, not even kind of or even in some oddly twisted way...... it is however a judge saying a persons first amendment rights was not violated. Probably because schools can make up any clothing policy they want, even more so if it will cause trouble.

I have always liked Clinton, my favorite all time.

You think it's ok to tell the students they can't wear an american flag on a mexican holiday? REALLY?

I thought you believed in free speech?

Seriously! Those days were as divisive and combative as they get!

Newt is the godfather of angry partisanship. He has seriously fanned the flames of the political divide in this country.

BTW, based upon his largest PAC contributor, which country exactly do you believe Newt is running to benefit? Hint: It is not the US. :2 cents:

Okay, here's this then...

http://www.stunning-stuff.com/read-w...ories/132.html

Shirts don't talk, and no speech was being given... and the freedom to self express is limited in every school in the Country.

All schools have dress codes, some very strict, others not so much, but they all have them. And all of them can modify those rules as they see fit, for any reason. Corporations do this as well.... The gov, corps, schools, even my house has rules on it.

The kids did this to be assholes... the school made the correct choice, I would have made the same choice.

just showing you that there is no difference between the left and the right

http://www.wackybuttons.com/designcodes/110/1100020.jpg