Which president do you think did a good or decent job but aren't generally thought of as doing a good job?When I was thinking about this today, these people came to mind.Zachary TaylorIf he hadn't died, I think he would have prevented the Civil War. South Carolina said they would succeed but Taylor told them he would personally lead the army and hang them all, they backed off because they knew he wasn't lying. he was a Southerner who understood the Norther view point so he could really mediate this issue.He got congress working on a deal which would satisfy both sides, which would eventually become the compromise of 1850. Chester A Arthur.Yes he was one of the biggest pretty boy partiers that has ever graced the White House, but he did help modernize the US Navy, again. He helped get a lot of legislation passed by congressed, including the haulting of Chinese immigration, and ending the Presidential Spoils system.The Spoils system for those who don't know, was the system inplace which would allow an elected president to place his friends in high offices in the government. Arthurs predicessor, James Garfeild, was shot and killed because a man thought he was entitled to a government job. This lead to the civil service acts, which greatly revolutionized our government.Lydon B Johnson.LBJ got stuck with Vietnam, he gets most the blame for it but Eisenhower and Kennedy put the pieces in play which LBJ had to play with. but LBJ did do some good for this country, he passed the Civil Rights act of 1965, which really helped stamp out Racism and lead to greater equality. He also lead a war on Poverty which benefited the south to a great deal.Richard NixonIf it wasn't for the Watergate scandal I think he would be counted as one of our greatest presidents. He opened up China for trade, helped end Nuclear proliferation(I forget which treater they signed, Salt I?). He also began the pull out of Vietnam. another thing which a lot of people don't know about him, is he wanted to start a counter terrorism unit in the US after the incident in Munich, but Kissinger, and (cheany---not sure) told him not to. Nixon felt that within the next 30 years there would be a terrorist attack against the United States.
I think LBJ got a really bad rap...he had a lot of good domestic things lined up for the country but the Vietnam War basically took over his 2nd term. Another person I think of is Andrew Jackson; a lot of people at the time didn't like his style of running things but the fact is is that he was one of the few presidents that left office with the country not in a financial deficit.
Nixon was a complete idiot. I know he opened trade with China but the only reason I believe he was even elected because he said he'd take us out of vietnam.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MaRdYC26 @ Jul 7 2007, 07:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Nixon was a complete idiot. I know he opened trade with China but the only reason I believe he was even elected because he said he'd take us out of vietnam.</div>Yeah, and he ended up surging the troops and invading Cambodia after he was elected. He was definitely an idiot. Jimmy Carter wasn't a bad president on paper; he was a nice guy but he basically let a lot of the progress that we reached with the Soviet Union collapse, and it took Reagan to fix it all.
You have had some interesting choices for Presidents over the years. You have not had a whole lot of luck of late though. Bush could of ruined the reputation of the United States forever. How he is still in charge is shocking.
Nixon was probably one of our smartest presidents, people forget he was practically groomed for the office. he just screwed up big time with Watergate. He also started the war on drugs thing, and under his administration it actually began to work for a time, before congress got involved. Here is one more guy I forgot to add. George H. W. Bush.He carried on Reagans legacy, and did a good job with Desert storm and the invasion of Panama. What hurt him the most was that he raised taxes after his famous "read my lips, no new taxes" quote. but raising taxes was actually a good thing, there were a few components of the government which needed repairs and money was needed. though I think his son has totally ruined his legacy.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (redneck @ Jul 7 2007, 10:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Nixon was probably one of our smartest presidents, people forget he was practically groomed for the office. he just screwed up big time with Watergate. He also started the war on drugs thing, and under his administration it actually began to work for a time, before congress got involved. Here is one more guy I forgot to add.</div>If Nixon was so "smart" the Watergate scandal would've never happened. Not really buying it bro.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (redneck @ Jul 7 2007, 10:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>George H. W. Bush.He carried on Reagans legacy...</div>LOL. What the hell was his legacy? Alzenheimer's in office, Iran-Contra (contras invented crack), racist drug laws, funding Al-qaeda and providing Iraq with chemical weapons, aligning himself with Faldwell and Buchannan on AIDS (Faldwell called AIDS, an emerging health threat in 1981, a "wrath of God upon homosexuals.")?
Reagan did quite a lot actually. I dont see how his drug laws were racist, yeah the percentage of those busted were minorities but some stats showed that the majority of users were minorities. Reagan helped end the cold war without violence, which many thought was impossible to do. I honestly don't think he knew about Iran-Contra, and if he did when he said he didn't know anything about it, that is probably true because by that time he had lost his mind. Reagan also brought a feel good attitude about this country, something we needed after Watergate, Vietnam, the Economic crisis called the Carter Administration, and generally a decade and a half of civil unrest.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (redneck @ Jul 8 2007, 11:23 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Reagan did quite a lot actually. I dont see how his drug laws were racist, yeah the percentage of those busted were minorities but some stats showed that the majority of users were minorities. Reagan helped end the cold war without violence, which many thought was impossible to do. I honestly don't think he knew about Iran-Contra, and if he did when he said he didn't know anything about it, that is probably true because by that time he had lost his mind. Reagan also brought a feel good attitude about this country, something we needed after Watergate, Vietnam, the Economic crisis called the Carter Administration, and generally a decade and a half of civil unrest.</div>Don't forget about Reaganomics!
-If you really believe that minorities in jail for violating drug laws are there not because of selective enforcement, but because they are actually doing more dope than whites, then I can understand why Reagan is your man. Good luck with that.-As far as Iran-Contra, it's unconscionable for him to say he didn't know the details. That's almost worse than trying to get away with such a dirty operation.
I'm trying to find the article, but it's from 1984 and it states that 17% of blacks in Detroit admited to using drugs. it also said that in 1983 20% of the blacks in jail were there for drug related reasons. that doesn't appear to be racism, it appears to be the laws of probability.and yes Minorities do commit more crimes than whites, thats because poor people tend to commit more crime and minorities tend to be poorer. this is especially true with drug crimes. because poor people tend to abuse street drugs, and richer tend to abuse persriction drugs.Like I said Reagan may have known at one time about Iran-Contra, but I think he was telling the truth when he said he didn't know anything about it. Alzheimers does that.
Only the kinds of crime that are easily prosecuted. Smoking weed or crack. It's not like a surreptitious, illegal international arms deal to a terrorist state with the subsequent profits financing drug smugglers from South America that targeted black communities in the first place.It's not like it was a plan. Because who could ever prove it?But that crackhead down the street, we got him. Plus we got the crack sentencing laws. I love the right.Edit: Those impoverished minorities couldn't afford cocaine before the Contras found a way to synthesize crack. Cocaine is and has always been a glam drug in powder form. Historically, the only time the law has a problem with it is when minorities get their hands on it. That tradition pretty much reflects the early attitude that formed the first drug laws in this country.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (redneck @ Jul 8 2007, 01:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I'm trying to find the article, but it's from 1984 and it states that 17% of blacks in Detroit admited to using drugs. it also said that in 1983 20% of the blacks in jail were there for drug related reasons. that doesn't appear to be racism, it appears to be the laws of probability.and yes Minorities do commit more crimes than whites, thats because poor people tend to commit more crime and minorities tend to be poorer. this is especially true with drug crimes. because poor people tend to abuse street drugs, and richer tend to abuse persriction drugs.Like I said Reagan may have known at one time about Iran-Contra, but I think he was telling the truth when he said he didn't know anything about it. Alzheimers does that.</div>I could not have said it any better. People like to dance around the fact that poorer people commit more crimes than the wealthy. More specific, minorities commit more crime than whites. A lot of people dont like to say things like this for fear of offending people.Ill go you one step further and say that 72% of all prisoners in Oakland County Jail are white. Is this racism twards white people? No. Why? Because 74% of the population in Oakland County are white. At the same time, 73 % of the inmates from Detroit are black and 68% of the population of Detroit is black. But this is now considered racism just because we are talking about minorities? However, I would venture to say that the percentages of poor and rich people who do drugs are approximately the same. But the poor areas tend to commit more crime (theft, murder etc.) than the rich people. Therefore, there is a greater presence of police in the poorer areas and you are more likely to get caught. This clears up why there are more drug busts in the poor areas and why more minorities are in jail for drug related reasons than white people. Simply put, there are more cops in Detroit than there are in Bloomfield hills. For those of you who might still be confused. If there are 2 drivers driving 30mph over the speed limit on 2 different stretches of highway. There is 1 cop on highway A and 3 cops on highway B. Who is more likely to get caught?
I ain't got too much of a problem with Detroit police. It's virtually an all black force. Psychologically they still seem to be messed up. My girl's brother got killed in a alley a few years back. The cats that did it got convicted. After sentencing, one of these dudes white girlfriends got up and said to us, "That's allright. Somebody is gonna see you on this one."It came off like a threat as she walked out.The cop comes over to us and prevents us from leaving the courtroom. I asked him why.He said, "I don't want that girl to get jumped."She didn't seem too worried.And Becar, you don't think the drug laws in the country are clearly racist? And on topic, Reagan did his part to ensure that crack, an inner city drug used mostly by poor people, carried a longer sentence than powder and snatched discretion from judges with mandatory sentencing laws.
Drug laws are almost always based on the middle class, if the Middle class is acceptable to a certain drug than it tends not to be regulated so much, if the middle class doesn't like a drug its highly regulated. And since the middle class is largely white, we do see drugs laws more lax towards "white" drugs.I think culture also has a lot to do with drug addicts going to jail. White drug addicts tend to live in Suburban areas and be more "everyday Joes", while black and Latino drug addicts tend to be more of the hip-hop culture, so besides the drugs many are also carrying firearms. Here in Utah there was a news thing stating that only 3% of whites picked up on drug charges had an illegal firearm, compared to 30% of Blacks, 45% of Latinos, and 80% of Polynesians.
guns don't equal hip hop. They never did. No matter how many corporate clowns get paraded on viacom to tell you otherwise.But I can swallow the rest of your argument.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gentile @ Jul 9 2007, 03:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I ain't got too much of a problem with Detroit police. It's virtually an all black force. Psychologically they still seem to be messed up. My girl's brother got killed in a alley a few years back. The cats that did it got convicted. After sentencing, one of these dudes white girlfriends got up and said to us, "That's allright. Somebody is gonna see you on this one."It came off like a threat as she walked out.The cop comes over to us and prevents us from leaving the courtroom. I asked him why.He said, "I don't want that girl to get jumped."She didn't seem too worried.And Becar, you don't think the drug laws in the country are clearly racist? And on topic, Reagan did his part to ensure that crack, an inner city drug used mostly by poor people, carried a longer sentence than powder and snatched discretion from judges with mandatory sentencing laws.</div>No I dont. Crack should carry a higher punishment than "lesser" drugs. It kills more people either directly or indirectly than most other drugs. Crack was cited in the cause of death in 46,362 deaths in 2004. You cant say that a law is racist only because there are more minorities commiting that crime than whites.
