# The measure of a President



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

In light of last night's State of the Union address, I submit these two videos for your viewing and enjoyment. The first is President Reagan's first inaugural address on January 20, 1981. The second is his State of the Union address given in February, 1985.

1st Inaugural Address: President Reagans Inaugural Address 1/20/81 - YouTube
State of the Union: President Reagan's State of the Union Speech - 2/6/85 - YouTube

As a bonus, I offer Reagan's October, 1964 speech supporting Goldwater for president. This was the speech that launched Reagan onto the national political scene.

"A Time for Choosing" by Ronald Reagan - YouTube

This... was a President.


----------



## AdamSmith (Dec 18, 2013)

Reagan was so full of B/S that he could fool anybody. A lot of people are still in the dark about him even today.

He was a great figurehead at the time, but you really had no idea who was really running the Country.

For a while, Nancy and her horoscope actually was running it.

Gasp!

Ike was actually the last decent GOP president we have had in the USA.

The others from the GOP were all losers or quacks.


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

AdamSmith said:


> Reagan was so full of B/S that he could fool anybody. A lot of people are still in the dark about him even today.
> 
> He was a great figurehead at the time, but you really had no idea who was really running the Country.
> 
> ...


Some say that Reagan had Alzheimer's the last yr. or two, while in office.

I tend to agree.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

AdamSmith:


> "Reagan was so full of B/S that he could fool anybody. A lot of people are still in the dark about him even today."


So now we have a Black Islamic Militant, who's goal is to fundamentally change this country. Have you ever paid attention to his past associates, those who shaped his beliefs that the United States was responsible for all the evils in the world? Does "America's chickens have come home to roost" sound familiar? Spoken soon after 9-11-01. I know, pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. He never listened to those sermons anyway. That's why he continued to worship there. Who really is running the country today? Scares the hell out of me.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

AdamSmith said:


> Reagan was so full of B/S that he could fool anybody. A lot of people are still in the dark about him even today.
> 
> He was a great figurehead at the time, but you really had no idea who was really running the Country.
> 
> ...


I hardly know where to begin with this so I'll just keep my thoughts and comments to myself. I will suggest that you consider your presentation when responding to others' posts.


----------



## AdamSmith (Dec 18, 2013)

The recent state of the union speech yesterday (1/29/2014) simply reflected the frustration between the two parties to get anything done.

The only thing they need to get done is raise the debt ceiling on Feb 7 at the end of next week.

The GOP has learned that it cannot play this out for any benefit, only bad press, so both parties have a stake in getting this done.

After this gets done, however, it seems unlikely that anything else will get done.

Both parties do not like each other, their leaderships do not like each other, and everything will likely be on hold until at least until the fall 2017 midterm elections in Congress.

So granted a stalemate is in store at the Federal level for the next 9 months, fast forward to what might happen then.

One possibility is that the GOP will sweep the US House and Senate. I don't know anyone who is betting on that though.

Another possibility is that the Dem's will sweep the US House and Senate. That is a possibility, but probably not likely.

The third possibility is that the US House and the Senate will each flip control, the US House to the Dem's and the Senate to the GOP. It will be interesting to see if this actually happens. Sometimes this has occurred in the past when the electorate / body-politic have become displease with both parties.

And the fourth possibility is that nothing in Congress will change at all, with the GOP retaining control of the US House, and the Dem's retaining control of the Senate.

In any case, it is most likely that there will continue to be stalemate at the Federal level for the remaining 3 years of the current Administration.

So the state of the union speech was just more of the same, nothing more or less. Not even worth talking about. So I don't see why it was even brought up here.

For gun rights, the only significant thing that will happen in the next 3 years would be US Supreme Court justices retiring. The activist left wing justices who want to retire will probably plan it for the last year of this administration, so that the White House can appoint and the Senate can confirm a new activist left wing replacement.

After the 2016 US Presidential election, there are several more justices who would need to retire out of extreme old age. So the next presidential election will be critical for the composition of the US Supreme Court. In the meantime there will be no likely gun issues at the legislative level or at the judicial.


----------



## AdamSmith (Dec 18, 2013)

SouthernBoy said:


> I hardly know where to begin with this so I'll just keep my thoughts and comments to myself. I will suggest that you consider your presentation when responding to others' posts.


Those are all facts, SouthernBoy. Are you having a hard time with facts?


----------



## Shipwreck (Jan 26, 2006)




----------



## Shipwreck (Jan 26, 2006)

Oh, and here is an actual photo of an ornament on the White house Christmas tree from the FIRST Christmas Obama was president. It is not photo shopped. IT really was put on the tree in the whitehouse...










What else is there to say....


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

AdamSmith said:


> Those are all facts, SouthernBoy. Are you having a hard time with facts?


Nope.


----------



## Cait43 (Apr 4, 2013)

America has not had a president that measured up in a veryyyyyyyyyyyyy long time............. And it does not appear America will get one anytime soon..............


----------



## AdamSmith (Dec 18, 2013)

Cait43 said:


> America has not had a president that measured up in a veryyyyyyyyyyyyy long time............. And it does not appear America will get one anytime soon..............


I liked Ike, but even Ike made mistakes -- ala Viet Nam.

Harry Truman was good too, but he made a blunder which triggered the Korean War.

FDR is remembered for The New Deal and Social Security, guiding the Nation through it's worst major depression. But his mistake was sending the Pacific Fleet to Hawaii where it could be easily attacked and nearly destroyed -- costing 2,400 American lives -- a blunder but not as big a blunder as Truman's.

Prior to FDR, there were not many very good presidents either -- Woodrow Wilson and Teddy Roosevelt perhaps. But lots of losers.

So it is not unseen to have a spate of loser presidents all in a row, such as LBJ, Nixxon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, GHW Bush, GW Bush, and anyone else you do not like added to the list. You can add Clinton and Obama to the list if you absolutely hate them. But they are great speakers, and the rest of the world certainly loves them.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

AdamSmith:


> "You can add Clinton and Obama to the list if you absolutely hate them. But they are great speakers, and the rest of the world certainly loves them."


You do mean great liars, Hitler was a great speaker too. If Clinton and Obama are loved by the rest of the world, they've got problems. You'd think that they would have learned where great speakers, uh I mean liars have taken their countries. Wilson gave us the league of nations who's purpose was to end all wars, what little good that did, and was the foundation for the United Nations, who in my opinion are the enemy of the United States, who wish to bring us down to third world status. Because most of it's member nations are envious of our standard of living. FDR's biggest mistake as far as I'm concerned, was the beginnings of the socialist welfare state. True, Vietnam began during the Eisenhower administration under the "domino theory" it actually goes deeper than that, France had a lot to do with our involvement, but it was Kennedy and Johnson who escalated it, had Kennedy survived who knows what might have happened. It was Johnson who did the most damage by continuing a war that he and McNamara knew couldn't be won. I only wish that Barry Goldwater would have won, he wanted to end that war in the beginning by turning North Vietnam into a marsh, instead of letting it drag on for ten long years with the loss of 58,000 American lives. If your going to ask Americans to sacrifice their lives in a war you've got to win it decisively with clear goals or not get involved at all. Personally, I don't think we've had any great presidents during the 20th and 21st century so far. That being said I have never nor ever will vote for a Democrat, and as much as I've been dis-appointed with the Republicans they are the lessor of the two evils.


----------



## AdamSmith (Dec 18, 2013)

desertman said:


> AdamSmith:
> 
> You do mean great liars, Hitler was a great speaker too. If Clinton and Obama are loved by the rest of the world, they've got problems. You'd think that they would have learned where great speakers, uh I mean liars have taken their countries. Wilson gave us the league of nations who's purpose was to end all wars, what little good that did, and was the foundation for the United Nations, who in my opinion are the enemy of the United States, who wish to bring us down to third world status. Because most of it's member nations are envious of our standard of living. FDR's biggest mistake as far as I'm concerned, was the beginnings of the socialist welfare state. True, Vietnam began during the Eisenhower administration under the "domino theory" it actually goes deeper than that, France had a lot to do with our involvement, but it was Kennedy and Johnson who escalated it, had Kennedy survived who knows what might have happened. It was Johnson who did the most damage by continuing a war that he and McNamara knew couldn't be won. I only wish that Barry Goldwater would have won, he wanted to end that war in the beginning by turning North Vietnam into a marsh, instead of letting it drag on for ten long years with the loss of 58,000 American lives. If your going to ask Americans to sacrifice their lives in a war you've got to win it decisively with clear goals or not get involved at all. Personally, I don't think we've had any great presidents during the 20th and 21st century so far. That being said I have never nor ever will vote for a Democrat, and as much as I've been dis-appointed with the Republicans they are the lessor of the two evils.


The most chronic recent liar in all history has been Romney.

He lied about Romney-care.

He lied about signing the Mass. assault weapons ban.

He lied about practically everything he said.

AND he was a BAD speaker -- totally boring and put everybody to sleep.

I am continually amazed at his 47% who cannot stop whining about the 2012 elections.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

AdamSmith:
I happen to agree about your comments about Romney, the man never stood for anything other than wanting to be president. I knew that once he got the nomination that the election was lost, same for McCain. The same can be said for Christie. Neither Christie nor Romney could ever be elected governor of the most Liberal states in America if they believed in true Republican principles. As it stands they only believe in themselves and will take any position to get elected. I am at a loss for words about McCain except that McCain only represents McCain, and was and still has been in office way too long, so much so that he is out of touch with reality. We had two of the most terrible candidates running against a man that the media had and still has a gushing love affair with. As for me I had to vote for McCain and Romney, because I knew that because of his sordid background and past associates, Obama would be and is the worst thing that could ever happen to this country. Hillary Clinton with her devious lying background is close behind. If this country is to remain a "Constitutional Republic" giving the Democratic Party complete control will be the end of it. God help us all.


----------



## AdamSmith (Dec 18, 2013)

desertman said:


> AdamSmith:
> I happen to agree about your comments about Romney, the man never stood for anything other than wanting to be president. I knew that once he got the nomination that the election was lost, same for McCain. The same can be said for Christie. Neither Christie nor Romney could ever be elected governor of the most Liberal states in America if they believed in true Republican principles. As it stands they only believe in themselves and will take any position to get elected. I am at a loss for words about McCain except that McCain only represents McCain, and was and still has been in office way too long, so much so that he is out of touch with reality. We had two of the most terrible candidates running against a man that the media had and still has a gushing love affair with. As for me I had to vote for McCain and Romney, because I knew that because of his sordid background and past associates, Obama would be and is the worst thing that could ever happen to this country. Hillary Clinton with her devious lying background is close behind. If this country is to remain a "Constitutional Republic" giving the Democratic Party complete control will be the end of it. God help us all.


Normally it just seems to work out that each of the two major parties gets control of one of the two houses of Congress.

My hope is that the GOP will front a really viable candidate next time, someone who will leave social security and medicare alone. GW Bush was actually not bad, overall, he just got a little carried away in Iraq and took his eye off the ball in Afghanistan. Maybe Bush's little brother will run next. Other than Jeb, I cannot think of anyone else besides Christie that has bipartisan moderate support.

Since Reid and Boehner have gotten a lot of bad media over the past few years, there is a chance that the Senate and House will each flip to the other party.

With a GOP President and GOP Senate, that would be the perfect recipe for the appointment of a whole slew of retiring USSC justices.

And Nancy Pelosi can do her thing in the House again, but this time without a slave boy to help her in the Senate too.

As for gun rights, everything will depend on the composition of the future USSC.

The battle carbines continue to stir controversy, especially since the psycho geeks and nerds have chosen them for their various school shootings, as did the DC sniper. If a carbine gun law goes to the USSC, they may or may not overturn it. Right now they would overturn it. In 4 years it is hard to say.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

AdamSmith:


> "My hope is that the GOP will front a really viable candidate next time, someone who will leave social security and medicare alone"


I do too! I don't think either party would do anything to alter social security and medicare with regards to current or future benefits, it would be political suicide. They might however extend the payroll tax to include your full earnings instead of stopping when you reach, I think around $110,000.



> "As for gun rights, everything will depend on the composition of the future USSC."


Absolutely! That's why it is imperative to pay close attention as to whom gets the Republican nomination for president. Gerald Ford nominated John Paul Stevens, hardly a friend of the 2nd Amendment, so there's no guarantee that the next Republican president will nominate someone who is in our favor. But you can be damn sure that a Democrat will never nominate someone to our satisfaction. The Democrats view the Constitution as a "living breathing document" and that our present Constitution is an obstacle in their quest to enslave the entire nation and force us to live under their way of thinking. The purpose of the Constitution is to constrain and limit the powers of government.



> "The battle carbines continue to stir controversy"


And they always will be, they will be used as a vehicle to try to ban and confiscate every privately held firearm in the United States. If they succeed in banning them, which firearms will be next? Two of the most recent shootings were committed with a shotgun, Joe Biden's favorite. First they have to register all firearms, once that happens confiscation attempts will not be far behind. I for one will not submit to that, along with millions of others, which leads to the next question: How to enforce it without violating other Constitutional provisions that protect private property rights, not to mention the right not to incriminate one self? Do they go on house to house searches with out a warrant? They certainly don't have the manpower to accomplish this. If they ever tried I'm sure they'd be met with armed resistance. Some say this isn't possible, that we could never fight the United States Government with it's modern army. But I beg to differ, first how many in the military would comply with orders to destroy their own friends, neighbors and relatives? Those very weapons that the military have would more than likely be used against the government, the country would be involved in another civil war. Besides our modern army and also the Russian army could not win in a war in Afghanistan with their rag tag army. Even if it never comes to that, could you imagine what would happen if they were to arrest everyone in America that owns a firearm? The criminal justice system and especially the prison system would never be able to handle it. If a revolution were to occur it would probably consist of taking out all the politicians who were responsible for unconstitutional laws that have violated our civil rights, and installing a new government. Which is the whole purpose of the 2nd Amendment in the first place.


----------



## AdamSmith (Dec 18, 2013)

Usually the candidate who gets elected president is simply the best public speaker.

That's why Obama beat Romney and McCain -- they were both very dry.

That's why Reagan beat Carter.

That's why JFK beat Nixxon.

But sometimes there are exceptions.

GW Bush beating Al Gore and John Kerry were exceptions -- Bush was not a very good speaker.

GHW Bush beating Mondale was also an exception. So the Bush family has been lucky with that so far.

Maybe Jeb will get lucky next time as well, when/if he runs against Hillary.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

AdamSmith:


> "That's why Obama beat Romney and McCain -- they were both very dry."


That's only part of the reason, the media absolutely adored Obama and wanted to be part of history and elect the first Black president. It didn't help that the Republicans had two of the worst candidates who only had tepid support from their base, this was a recipe for disaster. It was "Obamamania" just like "Beatlemania" during the early 60's. Nothing wrong with having a Black president, but a candidate should never get elected because of the color of his skin, ethnicity, or gender.



> "That's why JFK beat Nixxon."


Nixon lost because he looked terrible on television, those who listened on the radio to the debate had Nixon as the clear winner.



> "GW Bush beating Al Gore and John Kerry were exceptions -- Bush was not a very good speaker."


True, but Al Gore and John Kerry were just not like able. Kerry "Can I get me a huntin' license" was wooden and as phony as a three dollar bill, he backed every bit of anti gun legislation while he was a senator and was now pretending to be one of "us". In reality he had total contempt for "us" and thought we are nothing but a bunch of stupid "hicks". Gore is one arrogant SOB and it showed especially when he walked up to Bush and got in his face.



> "GHW Bush beating Mondale was also an exception. So the Bush family has been lucky with that so far."


I don't remember whether it was against Bush or Reagan when Mondale made the statement that "I'm gonna raise your taxes, he won't say it, I will" at any rate I think it stuck with him. GHW sealed his fate with his "Read my lips no new taxes" statement. Then we got stuck with Clinton a smooth talking lawyer and pathological lier, one despicable individual for sure.



> "Maybe Jeb will get lucky next time as well, when/if he runs against Hillary."


I doubt it, I think the country has had enough of the Bush's. I'm just hoping that they've had enough of the Clinton's.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

AdamSmith said:


> ...Harry Truman was good too, but he made a blunder which triggered the Korean War.


Which blunder was that, exactly?



AdamSmith said:


> ...FDR is remembered for...his mistake...sending the Pacific Fleet to Hawaii where it could be easily attacked and nearly destroyed -- costing 2,400 American lives...


Um, the US Pacific Fleet had been stationed in Hawaii for many years before FDR came along. The stupidity of parking battleships in easy-to-hit rows was purely that of the Navy's Commanding Officer, Pacific Fleet. We just happened to be lucky: The carriers were out at sea when the Japs hit.



AdamSmith said:


> ...Prior to FDR, there were not many very good presidents either -- Woodrow Wilson and Teddy Roosevelt perhaps...


Wilson was as stiff and as doctrinaire as only a university president could be. He did try to make the League of Nations work, though...And failed miserably.
Roosevelt was a Progressive, but it was a time when Progressivism was necessary for the economic growth of the nation. So we agree about him, anyway.



AdamSmith said:


> ...So it is not unseen to have a spate of loser presidents all in a row, such as LBJ, Nixxon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, GHW Bush, GW Bush, and anyone else you do not like added to the list. You can add Clinton and Obama to the list if you absolutely hate them. But they are great speakers, and the rest of the world certainly loves them.


Being a "great speaker" is not a necessary attribute of a good President, but it is always the necessary attribute of charlatans and demagogues. Whether "the rest of the world" loves a President is also not a necessary attribute, but is more an attribute of the worship of the ignorant for a demagogue.
Last, it is not necessary to "hate" Obama. He seems to be a pretty nice guy. I'd buy him a beer, anytime, and really enjoy discussing political philosophy with him. But nevertheless, as our President he is destroying our carefully-crafted political system, and his fiscal concepts are seriously damaging our economic system. I believe him to be a terrible President, and I want him out of office, but I see no need to "hate" him.

(I note that you tend to see concepts in black-or-white terms: Hate him or love him, for instance. I point out to you that the real world is, in a more correct and useful metaphor, arrayed in shades of gray.)


----------



## AdamSmith (Dec 18, 2013)

SteveM, we live in a modern world of google and internet.

You can google the Korean War anytime and find out the answers to your own questions about Harry Truman's blunder. It is normally mentioned somewhere in the first few paragraphs of coverage.

You're free to argue your other points anytime as well.

All US presidents and other heads of state make mistakes. History has shown.

LBJ and his escalation of Viet Nam comes to mind, but he did not start that war, he inherited it. 58,220+ American dead, for nothing.

Harry Truman's blunder cost 33,746+.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

AdamSmith said:


> SteveM...You're free to argue your other points anytime as well...


My name is just "Steve"-no "M."

Your "permission" is merely patronizing.
It is foolish to patronize anyone, but it is particularly foolish to patronize someone with more knowledge and experience than you, yourself, have.
Don't patronize me.

I notice that you cannot back-up your own assertions in any reliable way.
You made an assertion about Truman and Korea, but now you evade having to quote "chapter and verse."
You may be correct in your assertion, but, since you made it, it is childish of you to demand that I do my own primary research to add veracity to your statement.

The rest of your "answer" contains only evasions, and no substance.
Thus, you prefer to make empty assertions and, when challenged, you take the coward's way out.

You're a fool, and I do not suffer fools gladly.

Just as our last conversation ended, once again, I'm outta here.


----------



## Cait43 (Apr 4, 2013)

AdamSmith said:


> Harry Truman was good too, but he made a blunder which triggered the Korean War.
> 
> FDR is remembered for The New Deal and Social Security, guiding the Nation through it's worst major depression. But his mistake was sending the Pacific Fleet to Hawaii where it could be easily attacked and nearly destroyed -- costing 2,400 American lives -- a blunder but not as big a blunder as Truman's.


You mention President Truman made a *blunder* to trigger the Korean war yet do not say what it was.

Hind sight is great but has no meaning on what actually happened..... Shoulda, woulda, coulda...... While you see him sending the pacific fleet to Hawaii at that time in history as a mistake it was done as a show of American power...

*During the late 1930s, FDR began providing limited support to the Chinese government. In 1940, Roosevelt moved the Pacific fleet to the naval base at Pearl Harbor as a show of American power. He also attempted to address growing tensions with Japan through diplomacy.*
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...8ZF-FSdt93PCEqmRioEJuxQ&bvm=bv.60444564,d.aWc


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

Still waiting for our Mr. Smith to elaborate on this one;

"Reagan was so full of B/S that he could fool anybody. A lot of people are still in the dark about him even today."

All presidents have problems and make mistakes during their administration, some more than others. And some do bad things deliberately either because they believe what they're doing is right, they want to "fundamentally change" the nation, or sinister forces are working behind the scenes manipulating them like a puppet. And some just f--k up royally. And then there are those who pretty much do nothing at all for whatever reason. The twentieth and early 21st centuries have seen their share of all of these and we've managed to survive.

However, the one that currently occupies 1600 Pennsylvania Ave has the most potential of doing really serious harm to core structures of this country. He is the second worse president in my lifetime (which goes back to Truman), the worse still being Johnson. We'll know by January 20, 2017 how much damage the thing in the white house has wrought, though some may still even then be unknown.

Lastly, this thread was not meant to be a slug fest or a washing out on responders views about this president or that one or any of them. It was intended to show the difference between a pretty much wet noodle speech and one of substance. A comparison, if you will, of content and what a SOTU address is and was intended to be. That's really all I meant by posting what I did.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

Cait43 said:


> You mention President Truman made a *blunder* to trigger the Korean war yet do not say what it was.
> 
> Hind sight is great but has no meaning on what actually happened..... Shoulda, woulda, coulda...... While you see him sending the pacific fleet to Hawaii at that time in history as a mistake it was done as a show of American power...
> 
> ...


Roosevelt moved the Pacific Fleet from San Diego to Hawaii in early 1941. For many years, I have been convinced that this country (Roosevelt) took deliberate actions to provoke the Japanese into attacking us. And while I am not a fan of Roosevelt, these moves were necessary at the time because of what was happening in Europe and Asia. Roosevelt knew that Germany and Japan (Italy was not a real factor) could put the U.S. in a very precarious pincher like position if we did not ramp up and use our industry and manpower to quell the beasts. It was better to jump in sooner than later when those two countries had pretty much swallowed up the rest of the world and then pointed to us and said, "Now what are you going to do Uncle Sam"?

I'm not convinced that they knew well before hand that Japan would hit Pearl Harbor. We can play armchair quarterback all we want but Pearl lost us a lot of men and materiel. But in so doing, it galvanized this nation like nothing else could and sent a blood drenched message to Hirohito and Hitler that their days were numbered.

One of the things that gives me a huge measure of pride and astonishment is how much war material we produced during the war. The Axis powers had no hope of matching our output and once that dye was cast, their end was cast as well. Upon returning to Berlin after his defeat in North Africa, Rommel added that, "Whenever the United States enters a theater of operations with its full resources brought to bear, there can be no hope for victory".

87,000 war ships of all kinds
325,000 war planes (at one point a bomber every two minutes)
2.4 million trucks
102,400 tanks
2.7 million machine guns
twice the tonnage of merchant marine than the rest of the world combined

And on and on. And on top of all of this, the Manhattan Project to develop nuclear weapons. Hitler's two biggest blunders in WWII were: attacking the Soviet Union and allowing Japan to drag the U.S into the war. With the vastness of the USSR and its population, and the industrial production abilities of America, Germany was a lost cause. And Japan was never a serious threat to us. She just didn't have the resources or ability to sustain a prolonged conflict with a power such as the U.S.


----------



## Pukindog12 (Feb 21, 2011)

AdamSmith said:


> Prior to FDR, there were not many very good presidents either -- Woodrow Wilson and Teddy Roosevelt perhaps. But lots of losers.


Wow. Just wow. In one fell swoop, one statement, you just named three of the *WORST* presidents of the 20th century. Just need to add Carter to have a good golf outing (Barry would feel slighted as to not being invited :smt172).

And yes, I do know history. Just not the revisionist crap the progressives, collectivists, statists push around as gospel.

This reminds me of a quote someone said: "The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant. It's just that they know so much that isn't so." Concerning politics truer words have not ever been spoken.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

Pukindog12 said:


> Wow. Just wow. In one fell swoop, one statement, you just named three of the *WORST* presidents of the 20th century. Just need to add Carter to have a good golf outing (Barry would feel slighted as to not being invited :smt172).
> 
> And yes, I do know history. Just not the revisionist crap the progressives, collectivists, statists push around as gospel.
> 
> This reminds me of a quote someone said: *"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant. It's just that they know so much that isn't so."* Concerning politics truer words have not ever been spoken.


Reagan said this.


----------



## Pukindog12 (Feb 21, 2011)

SouthernBoy said:


> Reagan said this.


Yeah, I know. Kind of ironic. I just wondered if AS knew.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

Pukindog12 said:


> Yeah, I know. Kind of ironic. I just wondered if AS knew.


Not sure. I prefer to cut people some slack as I know it is not hard to get carried away and make a slip of the tongue.... or fingers in this arena. I learned a long time ago that how one presents their argument and position on an issue goes a long way in cementing credence with their audience.

BTW, welcome aboard. I see you're a new member of this site. Good to have you here.


----------



## berettatoter (Sep 1, 2011)

Shipwreck said:


>


LOL!!! I don't know for sure if we are quite there yet, but we're getting close! :anim_lol:


----------



## AdamSmith (Dec 18, 2013)

SouthernBoy said:


> Roosevelt moved the Pacific Fleet from San Diego to Hawaii in early 1941. For many years, I have been convinced that this country (Roosevelt) took deliberate actions to provoke the Japanese into attacking us. And while I am not a fan of Roosevelt, these moves were necessary at the time because of what was happening in Europe and Asia. Roosevelt knew that Germany and Japan (Italy was not a real factor) could put the U.S. in a very precarious pincher like position if we did not ramp up and use our industry and manpower to quell the beasts. It was better to jump in sooner than later when those two countries had pretty much swallowed up the rest of the world and then pointed to us and said, "Now what are you going to do Uncle Sam"?
> 
> I'm not convinced that they knew well before hand that Japan would hit Pearl Harbor. We can play armchair quarterback all we want but Pearl lost us a lot of men and materiel. But in so doing, it galvanized this nation like nothing else could and sent a blood drenched message to Hirohito and Hitler that their days were numbered.
> 
> ...


SouthernBoy, I too agree with your views on the above, and this is called the "modern revisionist" view of Pearl Harbor, thus known within the U.S. Naval League, an organization of civilians and veterans who support the Navy and Marine Corps.

The whole question, which we do not know the answer to, is whether Roosevelt intended to tempt the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor or not.

Admiral James O. Richardson specifically warned FDR that forward deploying the Pacific Fleet to Hawaii was putting them within easy reach of a Japanese attack.

But FDR did not want to hear it, and replaced him with Admiral Husband E. Kimmel, a newly promoted full admiral who was eager to please FDR and therefore paid him a lot of lip service.

2,386+ Americans died on Dec 7 1941 because FDR did not listen to his admirals, and because Kimmel was a brown nose-er.

The only question remaining is whether FDR was stupid or did it on purpose. If he did it on purpose, then he was a genius. Because FDR wanted to go to war against Adolf, and the Pearl Harbor attack sucked the USA right into WW2.


----------



## AdamSmith (Dec 18, 2013)

berettatoter said:


> LOL!!! I don't know for sure if we are quite there yet, but we're getting close! :anim_lol:


Calif, Conn, Hawaii, Maryland, Mass, NJ, NY, and RI are already there (CCCP's each).

The other states are mostly still free, although some charge an annual fee to exercise your freedoms.

Arizona, Arkansas, Wyoming, and Vermont are the most free -- you don't need to pay for freedom there.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/bb/US_State_Concealed_Carry.png


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

AdamSmith said:


> SouthernBoy, I too agree with your views on the above, and this is called the "modern revisionist" view of Pearl Harbor, thus known within the U.S. Naval League, an organization of civilians and veterans who support the Navy and Marine Corps.
> 
> The whole question, which we do not know the answer to, is whether Roosevelt intended to tempt the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor or not.
> 
> ...


I'm not so sure that FDR's specific intent of moving the fleet to Hawaii was to force Japan's hand for an attack on Pearl. I think it was much more in line of what he did in terms of cutting steel, oil, and rubber exports (remember, the Philippines were ours) to Japan in order to force their hand. So Pearl was more like an "in your face" move to the Japs. Tickling the tiger's tail, if you will. Germany was the real threat and FDR desperately wanted to convince congress and the American people of this fact. Germany had grown a modern military machine, had advanced technical abilities, and had developed very effective military strategies to collapse an adversaries will and ability to carry the fight.

However, Hitler made a number of major blunders in his quest. He should have attacked Russia in late March, no later than early April, of 1939 or 1940 and should have left England and France out of the picture. These countries were not friends of the USSR's communism and would have left him to his plan. And Russia would have been in a much less battle ready position due to Stalin's incessant purgings and the fact that the U.S would not have been supplying them either. After this, he could have turned his attention to the other European nations.

Japan didn't know how to fight a 20th century war as they were still hung up on the Bushido code of warfare. The U.S. employed modern tactics and literally decimated their military and their country. They had no hope when they dragged us into the conflict. And just six months in, we gave them a preview of what was to come in the form of Midway. The icing on the cake was the employment of the B29 forces.

Hitler was convinced of the supremacy of his military and his tactics and failed to consider that the U.S. and England were every bit his equal with the U.S. being his superior. His biggest blunder was allowing us to enter the war and with this, bring along our unsurpassed ability to produce war materiel which he couldn't hope to match. That and the intangible factor of free men fighting for their freedom. And even though Germany was also working on the development of a nuclear bomb, in early 1945 we found out that they were hopelessly off base and going in the wrong direction. And we weren't.

History is man's best teacher and those who refuse to learn from it are condemned by history itself to repeat the errors of history over and over again. [yes, paraphrased from George Santayana] The despots of history, be they the Neros or the Napoleons or the Hitlers or the Stalins or whomever eventually loose sight of reality in their quest for total domination. And that is their downfall. But the really sad thing is that the people they control allow this to happen time and again, believing that this time it will be different. The fact is, there is nothing new in the world in the arena of governing. It has all been tried before in one form or another. And it all eventually collapses under its own weight until once again, it raises its ugly head and the process begins anew.

One has to wonder if we will ever learn from this or are we condemned to repeat the same folly for eternity.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

Pukindog12 said:


> Yeah, I know. Kind of ironic. I just wondered if AS knew.


Interestingly enough Reagan said this in October, 1964.


----------



## AdamSmith (Dec 18, 2013)

SouthernBoy said:


> I'm not so sure that FDR's specific intent of moving the fleet to Hawaii was to force Japan's hand for an attack on Pearl. I think it was much more in line of what he did in terms of cutting steel, oil, and rubber exports (remember, the Philippines were ours) to Japan in order to force their hand. So Pearl was more like an "in your face" move to the Japs. Tickling the tiger's tail, if you will. Germany was the real threat and FDR desperately wanted to convince congress and the American people of this fact. Germany had grown a modern military machine, had advanced technical abilities, and had developed very effective military strategies to collapse an adversaries will and ability to carry the fight.
> 
> However, Hitler made a number of major blunders in his quest. He should have attacked Russia in late March, no later than early April, of 1939 or 1940 and should have left England and France out of the picture. These countries were not friends of the USSR's communism and would have left him to his plan. And Russia would have been in a much less battle ready position due to Stalin's incessant purgings and the fact that the U.S would not have been supplying them either. After this, he could have turned his attention to the other European nations.
> 
> ...


You are probably right, that FDR was expecting a Japanese attack elsewhere in the Pacific rather than Hawaii, and he moved the fleet to Pearl Harbor in order to be able to reach the battle zone a few days faster. He blundered however in exposing the fleet in the process.

Most people find it hard to believe the FDR would risk 2000+ American lives on purpose, so it would seem to have been a blunder on his part instead.


----------



## Shipwreck (Jan 26, 2006)

berettatoter said:


> LOL!!! I don't know for sure if we are quite there yet, but we're getting close! :anim_lol:


Sho nuff....


----------



## AdamSmith (Dec 18, 2013)

SouthernBoy said:


> I'm not so sure that FDR's specific intent of moving the fleet to Hawaii was to force Japan's hand for an attack on Pearl. I think it was much more in line of what he did in terms of cutting steel, oil, and rubber exports (remember, the Philippines were ours) to Japan in order to force their hand. So Pearl was more like an "in your face" move to the Japs. Tickling the tiger's tail, if you will. Germany was the real threat and FDR desperately wanted to convince congress and the American people of this fact. Germany had grown a modern military machine, had advanced technical abilities, and had developed very effective military strategies to collapse an adversaries will and ability to carry the fight.
> 
> However, Hitler made a number of major blunders in his quest. He should have attacked Russia in late March, no later than early April, of 1939 or 1940 and should have left England and France out of the picture. These countries were not friends of the USSR's communism and would have left him to his plan. And Russia would have been in a much less battle ready position due to Stalin's incessant purgings and the fact that the U.S would not have been supplying them either. After this, he could have turned his attention to the other European nations.
> 
> ...


I never did get why Adolf was so anti-Russian. The Russians had initially fought against the Kaiser in WW1, but they were soon turned back in defeat, and then ultimately they quit that war altogether when the 1917 revolution took place, ostensibly because socialism forbade workers fighting against workers of another nation, under the citizen/comrade of the world notion.

Yet Adolf attacked Russia in a quest for their cropland, their oil, and their territory -- as if Poland were not enough already. No oil in Poland, but plenty of everything else.

I suppose the 3 things that were clear signs of his madness were (1) his pro-German racism; (2) his anti-Semitism; and (3) his anti-Russian-ism.

The racism made him popular with the Germans because it was flattery in their ears.

The anti-Semitism resulted in genocide, which is not unknown in Europe or Africa anyway, most recently Serbian genocide.

The anti-Russian-ism is what ultimately led to his own military defeat. And then he topped it off with a declaration of war against the USA over Pearl Harbor.

Russia has always had a huge if inept army. I don't believe Adolf could have beaten Russia no matter how much earlier in the year he had started out.

And he really had no reason to attack Russia anyway. Stalin had compliantly agreed to the partitioning of Poland, so it would seem they were in agreement.

But I suppose he attacked Russia over their oil. Same reason as Japan moved into Indo-China.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

AdamSmith said:


> I never did get why Adolf was so anti-Russian. The Russians had initially fought against the Kaiser in WW1, but they were soon turned back in defeat, and then ultimately they quit that war altogether when the 1917 revolution took place, ostensibly because socialism forbade workers fighting against workers of another nation, under the citizen/comrade of the world notion.
> 
> Yet Adolf attacked Russia in a quest for their cropland, their oil, and their territory -- as if Poland were not enough already. No oil in Poland, but plenty of everything else.
> 
> ...


If Hitler had hit Russia earlier he would have had a much better chance of forcing them to the table. He would have had to hold off on Poland, England, and France and just hit Russia no later than April 1940. None of those three nations would have come to Russia's aid so that country would have been left to Germany's onslaught. I would have bet on Germany taking Russia if they had done this.

Of course, history proves Hitler's arrogance and pompous actions cost him everything. By mid 1942, it was over for Germany. He hated communism (his National Socialist party was just as bad and both systems were nothing more than extreme socialism) and he wanted Russian land and resources. Guess he didn't study Napoleon as well as he should have since the French failed for the same reasons. Russia is too large, has too many people, and is most inhospitable in the winter months.


----------



## Haas (Jun 24, 2009)

:watching:


----------

