Favorite President ?

[Bubblehead1980]

Okay, just want everyone to share their favorite US President and possible 3-4 reasons why if you can.Do not want an argument etc, just share.I am curious because we have quite the mix of political views here.

[Diopos]

President: Unborn.
Reason: Obvious.


.

[Castout]

JFK.

1. He believed in what he was saying when you look at him giving speech
2. He has got some sort of idealism which was validated with him being killed by non foreign agent. If it had been foreign agent WWIII would've already erupted or at the very least, a counter assassination of the Soviet highest leader would have happened. It's that obvious.
3. His speech about an evil secret society, coming from a US president in office no less :salute:

The greatest modern day American however in my opinion would be Martin Luther King Jr.

[CCIP]

Thomas Jefferson for me - reasons being primarily his views of individual rights, education, justice and the economy/socioeconomics (in particular as regard corporations). I agree with what he espoused in regard to these things, almost entirely. He did a good job of preserving these and advancing them somewhat. Not perfect (particularly as regards to his controversial dealings with slavery and Indian affairs), but a lot of the values he espoused and helped institute always stood, to me, as the fundamental things that made the rest of the world always look up to America. Though of course I say that as a non-American.

[Takeda Shingen]

Can't say that I have a favorite. I regard presidents as being either effective or ineffective in their work. I'll list three presidents that I feel are on each end of that.

Effective:

Abraham Lincoln: Reasons obvious. Probably the closest I have to 'favorite'.

Andrew Jackson: I detest his treatement of the Native American populace, but he did pave the way for the expansion of the United States. He also layed the ground work for the modern system of the federal government.

Franklin Roosevelt: SEC, FDIC, Social Security, minimum wage. Love him or not, those are now fixtures American governance.

Ineffective:

Andrew Johnson: Really botched reconstruction, didn't he?

William Henry Harrison: Sorry, but you can't be effective when you are in office for only 30 days.

Warren Harding: Too much poker, not enough watching the treasury department.

[Tribesman]

JFK.
because he had an unusual name thats very easy to spell

[Ducimus]

Andrew Jackson.

I can't say i like how he treated Native American's, but overall he was the common mans president. A tough, down to earth, grizzled man who took on the fat bankers.... and won.

[Aramike]

Can't say that I have a favorite. I regard presidents as being either effective or ineffective in their work. I'll list three presidents that I feel are on each end of that.

Effective:

Abraham Lincoln: Reasons obvious. Probably the closest I have to 'favorite'.

Andrew Jackson: I detest his treatement of the Native American populace, but he did pave the way for the expansion of the United States. He also layed the ground work for the modern system of the federal government.

Franklin Roosevelt: SEC, FDIC, Social Security, minimum wage. Love him or not, those are now fixtures American governance.

Ineffective:

Andrew Johnson: Really botched reconstruction, didn't he?

William Henry Harrison: Sorry, but you can't be effective when you are in office for only 30 days.

Warren Harding: Too much poker, not enough watching the treasury department.Excellent post!

My favorite was Lincoln for obvious reasons, followed by Reagan. Reagan's ability to communicate to many as though it were a private conversation was incredible. Also, I find his policies to be largely responsible for an expedited, chilled ending to the Cold War.

[Sailor Steve]

George Washington. He could have been a military dictator, but he stepped down when the time came, and threatened to court-martial anyone who suggested otherwise. He could have been king, but made sure that was impossible. When John Adams wanted Congress to give Washington the title "His Excellency, the President of the United States and Defender of Their Freedoms", it was Washington who suggested a more appropriate title might be "Mister President".

There hasn't been one like him since.

[Oberon]

Being a European, I'm rather on the outside when it comes to US Presidents, however, and I'm more of a center-left in regards to my political views, but my favourite president is most likely Ronald Reagan. It was his ability to communicate to the public that I liked, and his humour.

[Castout]

and his humour.

Nah Bush is even funnier. He's funny even when he didn't mean it :yeah:.

[mookiemookie]

I admire Teddy Roosevelt. He championed the idea of the "Square Deal," which he would have been lambasted by the drooling yahoos of today for. He wanted to reign in corporate excesses, namely in the railroads:

Our aim is not to do away with corporations; on the contrary, these big aggregations are an inevitable development of modern industrialism, and the effort to destroy them would be futile unless accomplished in ways that would work the utmost mischief to the entire body politic. We can do nothing of good in the way of regulating and supervising these corporations until we fix clearly in our minds that we are not attacking the corporations, but endeavoring to do away with any evil in them. We are not hostile to them; we are merely determined that they shall be so handled as to subserve the public good. We draw the line against misconduct, not against wealth

Plus, he was a badass. I mean here he is riding a swimming moose:

http://constitutionclub.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/53381173.jpg?w=640

[Happy Times]

Reagan.:salute:

I've discussed academic, unless we realize we're in a war that must be won.

Those who would trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state have told us they have a utopian solution of peace without victory. They call their policy "accommodation." And they say if we'll only avoid any direct confrontation with the enemy, he'll forget his evil ways and learn to love us. All who oppose them are indicted as warmongers. They say we offer simple answers to complex problems. Well, perhaps there is a simple answer -- not an easy answer -- but simple: If you and I have the courage to tell our elected officials that we want our national policy based on what we know in our hearts is morally right.

We cannot buy our security, our freedom from the threat of the bomb by committing an immorality so great as saying to a billion human beings now enslaved behind the "Iron Curtain" Give up your dreams of freedom because to save our own skins, we're willing to make a deal with your slave masters." Alexander Hamilton said, "A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one."
Now let's set the record straight. There's no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there's only one guaranteed way you can have peace -- and you can have it in the next second -- surrender.

Admittedly, there's a risk in any course we follow other than this, but every lesson of history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement, and this is the specter our well-meaning liberal friends refuse to face -- that their policy of accommodation is appeasement, and it gives no choice between peace and war, only between fight or surrender. If we continue to accommodate, continue to back and retreat, eventually we have to face the final demand -- the ultimatum. And what then -- when Nikita Khrushchev has told his people he knows what our answer will be? He has told them that we're retreating under the pressure of the Cold War, and someday when the time comes to deliver the final ultimatum, our surrender will be voluntary, because by that time we will have been weakened from within spiritually, morally, and economically. He believes this because from our side he's heard voices pleading for "peace at any price" or "better Red than dead," or as one commentator put it, he'd rather "live on his knees than die on his feet." And therein lies the road to war, because those voices don't speak for the rest of us.

You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. If nothing in life is worth dying for, when did this begin -- just in the face of this enemy? Or should Moses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery under the pharaohs? Should Christ have refused the cross? Should the patriots at Concord Bridge have thrown down their guns and refused to fire the shot heard 'round the world? The martyrs of history were not fools, and our honored dead who gave their lives to stop the advance of the Nazis didn't die in vain. Where, then, is the road to peace? Well it's a simple answer after all.

You and I have the courage to say to our enemies, "There is a price we will not pay." "There is a point beyond which they must not advance." And this -- this is the meaning in the phrase of Barry Goldwater's "peace through strength."
Winston Churchill said, "The destiny of man is not measured by material computations. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we're spirits -- not animals." And he said, "There's something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty."

You and I have a rendezvous with destiny.

We'll preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we'll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness

[TLAM Strike]

I admire Teddy Roosevelt. He championed the idea of the "Square Deal," which he would have been lambasted by the drooling yahoos of today for. He wanted to reign in corporate excesses, namely in the railroads:



Plus, he was a badass. I mean here he is riding a swimming moose:

http://constitutionclub.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/53381173.jpg?w=640

Teddy Roosevelt = Awesome!

He has to be on any short list of the best world leaders. :up:

He was also the first US President to travel aboard a Submarine. :03:

[the_tyrant]

Teddy Roosevelt for sure！(although i'm canadian)

come on, he was shot before a speech and he insisted on finishing it

[TLAM Strike]

...he was shot before a speech and he insisted on finishing it

Did you know that Teddy Roosevelt is alive today? He changed his name to Chuck Norris. :03:

[Skybird]

What good, real statesmen there have been in a far away past, is not that important. The important question is: why don't we have any today? Not a single name there is left today whom I would call that: a statesman. Instead we have attention-craving career-managers playing Diplomacy, and political party oligarchies that have completely hijacked and assassinated democracy and have put their own power interests before state's reason and the interest of the community. It's a total mess.

Can't say I know all US presidents there have been, but time and again I stumble over the quotes by Jefferson, and I think Eisenhower was a very good one, too, often a bit understimated. He was able to form bridges between Reps and Dems, instead of polarising them, and he had an indepoth knopwledge from first hand of the military and the interlinkiung between industry and military. Also, he did not want to become president, and had no craving for it, which again speaks for him. Both Roosevelts also get my positive attention.

In Germany, to me and many other Germans the choice is clear: Helmut Schmidt probabaly was the most clever and truthful chancellor we ever had - a bit arrogant, but Hanseatic in the best meaning fo the word, a Prussian- influenced officer with a stroing sense of duty (he even dared to reject the Bundesverdienstkreuz, Germany'S highest order, after he had left office, because he said that he did his duty, and fulfilling one's duty must not be rewarded). Even while now being in his 90s, he is still held in high esteem as one of the highest moral authorities in this country - and one of the most intelligent analysts of German and global politics we have.
Richard von Weizsäcker also is on my mind, an educated, decent gentleman from a family that has brought up several bright minds known in the world of science, politics, arts. Money and wealth was not what brought Schmidt and von Weizsäcker to ranks and honours.

[Jimbuna]

Roosevelt he came to the aid of the UK when we stood alone against Hitler.

[TLAM Strike]

Roosevelt he came to the aid of the UK when we stood alone against Hitler.

FWI for all Europeans...

Roosevelt in WWII = FDR
Roosevelt from Spanish American War = Teddy

Not all non Americans know there were two. There were also two Adams, two Harrisons and two Bushes

[Oberon]

Both Roosevelts were great presidents, I can't deny that. FDR was a fantastic friend to the UK and pushed every law he could to help us whilst still at peace, and those fireside chats...I still think that modern Presidents or Prime Ministers should do this, by radio, so as not to intrude on television, but just a communication to the people they govern as to what's going on, what the President thinks, that kinda thing.
Teddy Roosevelt, well, I don't actually know much about him aside from what has been written in this thread (and that's awesome enough) but, I mean, he just looks awesome, heck, they both do.

http://theamalgam.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/teddy-roosevelt1.jpg
Epic glasses :yeah:

[Sailor Steve]

I admire Teddy Roosevelt.
Teddy Roosevelt for sure!
Teddy Roosevelt
Teddy Roosevelt
Are any of you aware that he absolutely hated being called "Teddy"? He preferred 'TR'. His wife called him "Thee" (as in short for "Theodore").

Recordings of TR speeches:
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/troosevelt_film/trfsnd.html

[CaptainMattJ.]

what most people dont know is that lincoln wasnt as big an abolitionist as propaganda has inferred. Lincoln basically banned slavery as Punishment to the south for breaking off in the first place. The south's entire economy was pretty much based on slaves. Lincoln didntlike slavery, sure , but he didnt go out and start the war bbecause of it. it came towards the end. He also imprisoned anyone speaking out against him, calling them "a threat to national security".

Clinton was great. he really got america in tip top shape. Now bush F-ed all that up, and now Obama has to be the one who gets pelted by fruit in town square. Bush REALLY Screwed this country up, and just cause obama isnt getting it done in 4 years doesnt mean Jack. Obama is......decent...... but hes not good enough to fix it up ASAP. Its not his fault that republicans are Fighting him EVERY single step of the way. The health care bill Got mangled and screwed up and now it sucks. Now health care REQURES you to have insurance, and the only game in town is private insurance companies. Republicans Only care about corporations, and thats a FAAAAAAAAACT. They couldnt Give a God dam about this country, just the people on top. Their motto is "screw the middle class" and its ingraved in stone. then again, DEMOCRATS are Greedy A holes too. ESPECIALLY in California. BOth parties are corrupt, and as ong as they are in power this country will fall.

[Jimbuna]

Both Roosevelts were great presidents, I can't deny that. FDR was a fantastic friend to the UK and pushed every law he could to help us whilst still at peace,

I'm wondering if history might have turned out differently post Dec 41...when America was attacked by Japan, America declared war on Japan but not Germany.

We have Hitler to thank for it was he who declared war on America....otherwise it is possible the Americans may have put major emphasis on the PTO and left Britain and the Commonwealth to get on with the war in Europe.

We did declare war on Japan in support of our American cousins though.

[Bubblehead1980]

what most people dont know is that lincoln wasnt as big an abolitionist as propaganda has inferred. Lincoln basically banned slavery as Punishment to the south for breaking off in the first place. The south's entire economy was pretty much based on slaves. Lincoln didntlike slavery, sure , but he didnt go out and start the war bbecause of it. it came towards the end. He also imprisoned anyone speaking out against him, calling them "a threat to national security".

Clinton was great. he really got america in tip top shape. Now bush F-ed all that up, and now Obama has to be the one who gets pelted by fruit in town square. Bush REALLY Screwed this country up, and just cause obama isnt getting it done in 4 years doesnt mean Jack. Obama is......decent...... but hes not good enough to fix it up ASAP. Its not his fault that republicans are Fighting him EVERY single step of the way. The health care bill Got mangled and screwed up and now it sucks. Now health care REQURES you to have insurance, and the only game in town is private insurance companies. Republicans Only care about corporations, and thats a FAAAAAAAAACT. They couldnt Give a God dam about this country, just the people on top. Their motto is "screw the middle class" and its ingraved in stone. then again, DEMOCRATS are Greedy A holes too. ESPECIALLY in California. BOth parties are corrupt, and as ong as they are in power this country will fall.

You know, I did not want this to be a thread for argument, just statement but this was just bull so I must respond.


Lincoln gets too much praise, I find him to be a terrible President who is highly overrated.Sure, he did some good things but did a lot of terrible things as well such as not allowing criticism, traits of a tyrant and dictator for sure.

Clinton is overrated, he could play that working class hero crap well so it helped him with the masses.Clinton was a lot like Obama his first two years, but Republicans took control of Congress and Clinton began to govern from the center(somewhat) as the economy rebounded and thus secured his reelection, plus Bob Dole was not exactly a great candidate.Not to get start on Obama but Obama will not do the same because Obama is too much of an ideologue.Congress was controlled by Republicans for most of Clinton's Presidency and were the safeguard against Clinton's more Leftist ambitions.Clinton would be looked at much different had Republicans not won the mid terms in 94.

[Bubblehead1980]

Tie with Reagan and George Washington.As another poster pointed out, George Washington could have been a dictator but he was a great man who did not want that.

Ronald Reagan of course.Reagan was an everyman, essentially a regular guy who moved up in his career then got involved with politics because he hated where the country was going.Reagan fought the good fight and despite the detractors, he won in 1980 and turned the economy around while defeating the Soviets, who we had dicked around with since the murder of JFK.Reagan left office with a 64% approval rating and a recovered economy, best modern President.

No offense but some of you guys should really think about FDR.I used to admire him but things I've learned over past few years, he was not so great.Wartime leadership was excellent but his economics, ehhh not so much.

[Takeda Shingen]

Clinton was great. he really got america in tip top shape. Now bush F-ed all that up, and now Obama has to be the one who gets pelted by fruit in town square. Bush REALLY Screwed this country up, and just cause obama isnt getting it done in 4 years doesnt mean Jack.

I should point out to you that the one of the major causes of the gobal economic crisis was the collapse of the housing market, in no small part due to the issuance of subprime mortgages financed by the tax incentives given by HUD. This, of course, was begun in 1996 under the Clinton administration. The same administration was also, largely, asleep at the switch in regards to Islamic terror; paving the way for the attacks in 2001.

Bubblehead, I stand by my assessment of Franklin Roosevelt. You may not like him, but his mark on American governance is indelible.

[Bubblehead1980]

I should point out to you that the one of the major causes of the gobal economic crisis was the collapse of the housing market, in no small part due to the issuance of subprime mortgages financed by the tax incentives given by HUD. This, of course, was begun in 1996 under the Clinton administration. The same administration was also, largely, asleep at the switch in regards to Islamic terror; paving the way for the attacks in 2001.

Bubblehead, I stand by my assessment of Franklin Roosevelt. You may not like him, but his mark on American governance is indelible.


Good point, I forgot to include that Clinton was basically responsible for the attacks in 2001 as well as the subprime crisis.

I do not deny FDR had an impact but hate when he gets high marks, he in large part he planted the seeds for many of our problems today.From taking people's gold, to bullying the Supreme Court and his very socialist programs.Lets not forget his legacy which is now nothing but a damn burden on us basically, Social Security.

[Skybird]

I'm wondering if history might have turned out differently post Dec 41...when America was attacked by Japan, America declared war on Japan but not Germany.

We have Hitler to thank for it was he who declared war on America....otherwise it is possible the Americans may have put major emphasis on the PTO and left Britain and the Commonwealth to get on with the war in Europe.

We did declare war on Japan in support of our American cousins though.
I think being at war with Japan would have neutralised any former hesitation to get engaged in Europe as well, so maybe it would have changed the timing a bit if Hitler would not have declared war, but sooner or later the US would have entered the European war, too.

[Tchocky]

Favourite, now there's a tough one.

I find Clinton, Nixon and Kennedy to be the most interesting to read about and learn about. That said, the Presidency up until Wilson is not something I know much about.

[Tribesman]

We did declare war on Japan in support of our American cousins though.
In fairness the declaration was in direct response to the landings on and bombardments of Britsh possesions in the far east, the attack on American possesions is not mentioned at all in the declaration.

[mookiemookie]

I should point out to you that the one of the major causes of the gobal economic crisis was the collapse of the housing market, in no small part due to the issuance of subprime mortgages financed by the tax incentives given by HUD. This, of course, was begun in 1996 under the Clinton administration.

While that is a contributing factor, it's by no means a "major cause" of the global financial crisis. Ultra low interest rate policies and negligent regulators, yes. But I fail to see how a distinctly American housing policy caused a global runup in housing prices. To say it's all one President's fault or another is pure politics, and not data driven analysis.

Not to derail this thread, of course.

[Takeda Shingen]

While that is a contributing factor, it's by no means a "major cause" of the global financial crisis. Ultra low interest rate policies and negligent regulators, yes. But I fail to see how a distinctly American housing policy caused a global runup in housing prices. To say it's all one President's fault or another is pure politics, and not data driven analysis.

Not to derail this thread, of course.

It certainly was not entirely the fault of the Clinton administration, and I made no such claim. I was simply responding to the 'tip-top shape' comment by CaptainMattJ in stating that the Clinton administration is by no means free of blame for the current crisis.

[mookiemookie]

It certainly was not entirely the fault of the Clinton administration, and I made no such claim. I was simply responding to the 'tip-top shape' comment by CaptainMattJ in stating that the Clinton administration is by no means free of blame for the current crisis.

*hat tip* Carry on then. :salute:

[TLAM Strike]

I'm wondering if history might have turned out differently post Dec 41...when America was attacked by Japan, America declared war on Japan but not Germany.

We have Hitler to thank for it was he who declared war on America....otherwise it is possible the Americans may have put major emphasis on the PTO and left Britain and the Commonwealth to get on with the war in Europe.

We did declare war on Japan in support of our American cousins though.

Funny you should mention that. I'm playing Hearts of Iron II right now as the USA and that's exactly whats going on. Its mid 1943 and I've occupied the Japanese home islands and Korea. Saved the Phillipines and are clearing out the islands in the Pacific. :hmmm:

Both Roosevelts were great presidents, I can't deny that. FDR was a fantastic friend to the UK and pushed every law he could to help us whilst still at peace, and those fireside chats...I still think that modern Presidents or Prime Ministers should do this, by radio, so as not to intrude on television, but just a communication to the people they govern as to what's going on, what the President thinks, that kinda thing. The POTUS still does a radio address once a week.

Are any of you aware that he absolutely hated being called "Teddy"? He preferred 'TR'. His wife called him "Thee" (as in short for "Theodore").

:damn: I should since I went to Theodore Roosevelt elementary school (AKA School #43).

But everyone there incl. the teachers called the school "Teddy Roosevelt".

[TheSatyr]

This may be surprising,but I'd have to say Nixon. Detente with China and the USSR. Ending the Vietnam War. Being one of the last Presidents that Israel actually listened to. And being what some Presidential Scholars consider to be the last true "liberal" President.

As for Watergate,I always considered that to be an overblown scandal. So Nixon is forced to resign because he refused to throw his aides under a bus over something they still can't prove that Nixon knew anything about. But then again,the Dems hated Nixon with a passion since he basically stole their platform and got the Repubs in congress to go along with it,where a Dem President would have failed to get Repub support.

Personally,I always felt that Robert F. Kennedy's illegal wiretaps while Attorney General was a lot worse than some second rate burglery. (Not to mention later scandals such as Iran-Contra and Whitewater)

[Sailor Steve]

what most people dont know is that lincoln wasnt as big an abolitionist as propaganda has inferred. Lincoln basically banned slavery as Punishment to the south for breaking off in the first place. The south's entire economy was pretty much based on slaves. Lincoln didntlike slavery, sure , but he didnt go out and start the war bbecause of it. it came towards the end. He also imprisoned anyone speaking out against him, calling them "a threat to national security".
Aaaaand, here we go again. There are a thousand reasons that can be discussed concerning that period, but an uninformed flat statement like that one is just looking for a fight. This is a thread about your favorites, not why someone was less than some people think he was.

If you want to start a Civil War thread, start one. Don't turn this into one by launching an attack on a president someone mentioned. That has happened too many times here.

[Stealth Hunter]

Both Roosevelts are tied for me.

[Takeda Shingen]

Aaaaand, here we go again.

I was going to make a wager in the beginning as to how long it would take to get to this again. Every time we talk about US presidents it seems to go there.

[CaptainMattJ.]

Aaaaand, here we go again. There are a thousand reasons that can be discussed concerning that period, but an uninformed flat statement like that one is just looking for a fight. This is a thread about your favorites, not why someone was less than some people think he was.

If you want to start a Civil War thread, start one. Don't turn this into one by launching an attack on a president someone mentioned. That has happened too many times here.
attack? hows that an attack? i wasnt putting down lincoln. i merely stated an extra little fact about him. Lincoln was still a good president. better then most, in fact. But people shouldnt put him higher then he was. he was still a great president, but i thought some people should know that if they didnt already.

seems you took that the wrong way. it may have been strongly worded, sure, but not an attack.

[CaptainMattJ.]

I should point out to you that the one of the major causes of the gobal economic crisis was the collapse of the housing market, in no small part due to the issuance of subprime mortgages financed by the tax incentives given by HUD. This, of course, was begun in 1996 under the Clinton administration. The same administration was also, largely, asleep at the switch in regards to Islamic terror; paving the way for the attacks in 2001.

Bubblehead, I stand by my assessment of Franklin Roosevelt. You may not like him, but his mark on American governance is indelible.
I love how people blame everyone except the DIRECT assailant. go ahead and blame clinton for 9/11 and not the actual terrorists. You can argue "Well if clinton had been more aware (or BUSH mind you, who was in office for a full year by then) that we couldve prevented it" well guess what if the terrorists hadnt attacked, there wouldnt be 9/11. Blame the terrorists. Could there have been more security? yes. Was there any reason at the time to even THINK that something like that would happen on a random day in september? no.I dont know of ANY other case besides 9/11 where they hijack a plane and crash it into buildings. At least not on that scale. Why would they suspect that it would happen? They wouldve been alot more alert to suddam hussain Gasing us, but not 9/11.

[TLAM Strike]

I dont know of ANY other case besides 9/11 where they hijack a plane and crash it into buildings.

http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/6135/debtofhonor.jpg
^Published 1994

Tom Clancy for national security adviser! :yeah:

[Takeda Shingen]

I love how people blame everyone except the DIRECT assailant. go ahead and blame clinton for 9/11 and not the actual terrorists. You can argue "Well if clinton had been more aware (or BUSH mind you, who was in office for a full year by then) that we couldve prevented it" well guess what if the terrorists hadnt attacked, there wouldnt be 9/11. Blame the terrorists. Could there have been more security? yes. Was there any reason at the time to even THINK that something like that would happen on a random day in september? no.I dont know of ANY other case besides 9/11 where they hijack a plane and crash it into buildings. At least not on that scale. Why would they suspect that it would happen? They wouldve been alot more alert to suddam hussain Gasing us, but not 9/11.

Strawman. No one has absolved Al Qaeda of the attacks. However, it is the duty of my government, it's security agencies and it's military, of whom the president is Commander in Chief, to think of the unthinkable and to prevent it from happening. The fact that the WTC was the target of a similar attack in 1993, however, provides more than a few clues as to the intention of the terrorists. If that is not enough for suspicion, then I do not know what would be.

[JU_88]

Was there any reason at the time to even THINK that something like that would happen on a random day in september? no.I dont know of ANY other case besides 9/11 where they hijack a plane and crash it into buildings. At least not on that scale. Why would they suspect that it would happen?

Oh boy, you couldnt be more wrong about that
just watch these please, (and get ready to be angry)



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsM3oCsEJOE&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-aaf6NuKRHE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFhz4pYIGKg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QU_WDz3gc7s&feature=related

[Sailor Steve]

attack? hows that an attack? i wasnt putting down lincoln. i merely stated an extra little fact about him. Lincoln was still a good president. better then most, in fact. But people shouldnt put him higher then he was. he was still a great president, but i thought some people should know that if they didnt already.

seems you took that the wrong way. it may have been strongly worded, sure, but not an attack.
My apology then. We've had more than one 'President' thread turn into a major batlle over the civil war, and it usually started with someone 'explaining' why Lincoln was really the cause of all the country's woes. I agree he was an extreme politician and knew how to manipulate people to get what he wanted, but I also feel that what he wanted was for the best. This might give you some insight as to why I reacted the way I did.
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=171933