for those that care.

[HouselessRogue]

Katrina was very preventable. Don't live below sea level.

Can't argue that logic. A river, a lake, a gulf... we should build a city in the middle! Hell yeah! Make it bowl shaped!

Only in the South.

[EyeSeeU]

Katrina was very preventable. Don't live below sea level.

I'm glad you said that for me! Thanks buddy!

[Twinblades713]

Technically, Katrina wasn't preventable. Unless we can control weather and natural disasters.

What I don't get is why people rebuild there. o.0

'The hurricane feels bad and won't ever do it again'

[EyeSeeU]

katrina would not have been so devastating if there wasn't a dense population right next to the gulf of mexico surrounded by levees that were to small. Which is what myrek said, there shouldn't be huge cities below sea lvl.

Anyone ever see the happening, I am waiting for that to happen!

[Twinblades713]

Anyone ever see the happening, I am waiting for that to happen!

That was a retarded movie. It wasn't even a psychological thriller...

[Pali]

Here is a link... http://library.thinkquest.org/11046/days/bay_of_pigs.html so you can shut your piehole and stop spreading false statements.

They pretty much had been backed up by FDR, your so-called great president, and fought valiantly on the shores of Cuba. If FDR was going to have coldfeet, maybe, just maybe, he should not have promised the air support he promised them. That just showed what lack of confidence FDR had, and has completely shown how a flip-flopping president is a danger to not only the country, but a danger for the people themselves.

Funny, FDR doing this and all, since he'd been dead for nearly two decades at the time of the Bay of Pigs incident...

[J.Twendrist]

... I thought something seemed weird about FDR being involved there but I didn't bother to look it up. Kind of ironic how that link disproves the statement...

[HouselessRogue]

Technically, Katrina wasn't preventable. Unless we can control weather and natural disasters.

What I don't get is why people rebuild there. o.0

'The hurricane feels bad and won't ever do it again'

We have hired a team of experts to cast 'control weather' better repeatedly for the next 18 years. We're all hoping for the best.

[inscribed]

Lincoln? What? I can't even wrap my mind around that one. Lincoln kept a country bent on war from shattering completely. Had he not the things that he did it is very possible that we would have been split for good. He is one of our better presidents. I don't see how you could make argument to the contrary.

FDR. He only navigated the country through the great depression and a world war. Yeah, what a ****er. Served four terms and is consistently admired as one of the better presidents.

How on earth could you call those two among the worst? I can't see it.

FDR: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3357

Lincoln: http://www.mises.org/article.aspx?Id=607&FS=Lincoln%27s+Economic+Legacy

i'm not going to write up an essay here, many people have done better than i can do. that, and i'm lazy. those two links are from about 5 seconds of googling.

See my' date=' and Pali's, above posts. Anyone that legitimately believes this can easily claim ignorance... Because they cannot claim much else. (Maybe insanity)[/quote']

at this point, no one will be changing their mind about bush. i am far from an ignorant guy, and i stand firmly by what i say. america has simply become a culture of victims. everyone wants to blame someone else for problems whose solutions are (or were) completely in their own hands.

[Ex-D&Der]

i voted for bush both times. if i could go back, knowing what i know now, i'd do it again.

of course the man had flaws. anytime you have a republican president expanding government and passing garbage like 'no child left behind', you know something isn't going right. i'm still confident that he performed much better than either of his two democratic opponents could have done though.

as far as calling him 'one of the worst presidents ever'? not even close. lincoln, fdr, carter, harding, grant.... bush had a long ways to go before he came close to ranking with the worst.

Lincoln--abolished slavery?

FDR--the New Deal, defeated Nazi Germany?

Carter--deregulation, appointed Paul Volcker who ended inflation. Not a great president, but better than Bush.

Harding--you're onto something--he's definitely in the running for worst president. Corruption at the highest levels of his administration, cozy relationship with big business, much like Bush.

Grant--passed 15th Amendment, Ku Klux Klan Act, continued Reconstruction for 8 years. A mediocre president though because of corruption on his watch, but better than Bush.

Bush: pick any objective measure: job growth, economic growth, federal budget, civil liberties, national security, international reputation, approval rating--the decline has been stunning, certainly among the worst and very possibly the worst.

Check out this link:

He's the Worst Ever

Or this link:

61% of Historians Rate the Bush Presidency the Worst

Who is the true idiot? The so-called idiot' date=' or they who twice elect the idiot? I personally question how much of an idiot Mr. Bush really is.[/quote']

Malch: I thought you a supporter of Bush?

[Iconz]

hehehe... and here i thought i was one of the few people who gets a good chuckle out of "Lincoln freed the slaves"....

__________________

Iconz - "History is how we choose to remember the facts..."

[Pali]

Let's be honest here... in his own words, Lincoln would've let slavery continue to keep the union together. The Civil War was not about slavery until 1863, two years into it. Quite frankly, the man's suffered from hero worship... he's been mythologized into an abolishinist icon, when in most ways we're hard-pressed to judge his abilities as a president would be judged today (who here knows about his economic plans, his stances on social issues beyond slavery - where, as I said, he was NOT a stauch abolishionist - or anything beyond the fact that he was president of the winning side of the Civil War and was assassinated shortly after it ended? Because, I don't).

There's a LOT more to judge FDR by than Lincoln... but then, that's what being president for 13 years instead of 5 gives you.

[Ex-D&Der]

It's true that Lincoln didn't intend to abolish slavery at the outset of the Civil War--only to stop its spread. But when faced with massive desertions of slaves, he did issue the Emancipation Proclamation and ordered generals such as William T. Sherman to liberate slaves as they went through the South, which they did. Lincoln also signed the 13th Amendment, which made slavery illegal throughout the union. We shouldn't confuse intentions and actions here. In the event, he acted to overturn slavery, which had an important effect. At any rate, he was a much better president than Bush--probably number one or number two in history.

[myrek]

I was always taught that Lincoln did it to hamstring the South.

[Questioner]

Hehe, sorry, substitute JFK for FDR. I was tired ok! Jeez.

[HouselessRogue]

I was always taught that Lincoln did it to hamstring the South.

That's true. The South didn't have the industry for a long scale war. They did send envoys to England and were pledged support. Lincoln emancipated the slaves for two reasons: he needed troops and England didn't allow slaves at the time. Both of which were boons to the North and as you stated, a hamstring, to the South.

Lincoln made some difficult choices all along and he was the driving force behind the Unification of both sides. He was also very classy at the end when he tried his best to keep guilt from being placed and wanted everyone to be American again. His speeches were very stirring and he was a rally point at a very, very rough time in our history. I think that is why people respect the man. I don't know how he felt about abortion or gay marriage though.

[Ex-D&Der]

I was always taught that Lincoln did it to hamstring the South.

That was one reason--military necessity. The economy of the South ran on slave labor, and the Confederate forces were able to resupply in the countryside so long as the slaves kept working. Also cotton could be shipped to Europe to buy supplies. Under General Order 100 anything that could help the South wage war became a legitimate target. This included railroad tracks, stores of cotton, valuable homes, and slaves.

There were other reasons--pressure from radicals, and the question of what to do with thousands of runaway slaves, who under the original policy of the North were supposed to be returned to their owners.

[J.Twendrist]

Lincoln didn't have the power to free the slaves, no president did, and the Emancipation Proclamation didn't pertain to states in the union. Hence why some kept their slaves. The Emancipation Proclamation was more so to deter sucession. Not saying he wasn't a good president of course, but hi first priority wasn't ending slavery.

[Pali]

Lincoln didn't have the power to free the slaves' date=' no president did...[/quote']

Quite true, as such required legislation approved by Congress rather than an executive order. It does get annoying sometimes when people confuse which branches of government can do which things.

[J.Twendrist]

I agree. It is rather annoying to know how little some people know about the government and the world around them in general...