Reagan to replace FDR on dime?? *POLL INCLUDED*

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

SportSC4

Golden Member
Aug 29, 2002
1,152
0
0
They should make the law 60 years after the president dies before they can be considered to have naming rights on government buildings or faces on money. that way the people who knew him and liked him will have died and the only the man's actions will survive the test of time. in 60 years if people see his actions as great and they decide to honor him, then so be it.

that said, reagan was an actor, his cabinet did whatever work. he negotiated with terrorists. i can't think of any programs from his administration that has positively influenced the people of the USA to this day.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
This HAS to be a joke. Every thing you take for granted was under FDR from 40 hour work weeks to home loans to rural electrification to all-time-low-unemployment (2.5%) to FDIC and on and on and on.

WTF did reagan do? Polarized the nation's wealth and income to all time highs? America went from being the world's greatest creditor nation to its greatest debtor nation? Entire industries bailed the USA?
 

spliffstar69

Golden Member
Oct 10, 2000
1,825
0
76
I see nothing wrong with an update that changes everything from the 1 cent penny to the $100 dollar bill,
every 50 or 100 years and it keep on rotating cool idea to honor them all me thinks even if you like or disliked that president.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Pretty Cool Ranking

The Presidents: History's Judgment

When TIME asked nine presidential historians to rank, from best to worst, the 17 American Presidents of the 20th century, we left some questions to their discretion: What do we expect from our leaders? Are effective Presidents also the most significant ones? What constitutes greatness? Here is our panel's consensus:

1. Franklin D. Roosevelt

Term: 1933-45
Chief accomplishments: Rescued country from Depression; led U.S. through its greatest foreign war
Biggest blunder: Tried to "pack" the Supreme Court in 1937
Historians' comments: "Changed the landscape of American life"; "In a class by himself"; "Indisputably the century's greatest"

2. Theodore Roosevelt

Term: 1901-09
Chief accomplishments: Busted trusts; expanded public lands; increased U.S. influence abroad
Biggest blunder: Somewhat unlawful meddling in Latin America
Historians' comments: "The great prophet of affirmative government"; "The best example of an 'activist' President. Bully!"

3. Woodrow Wilson

Term: 1913-21
Chief accomplishments: Created Federal Reserve System; led country through World War I and devised League of Nations
Biggest blunder: Failed to secure domestic support for League
Historians' comments: "A great visionary who presided over major domestic advances"

4. Harry S Truman

Term: 1945-53
Chief accomplishments: Launched Marshall Plan, nato; desegregated armed services
Biggest blunder: Overreached in the Korean War
Historians' comments: "Architect of the winning strategy in the cold war"; "A decent human being with homespun virtues"


5. Dwight D. Eisenhower

Term: 1953-61
Chief accomplishments: Quietly presided over period of peace and unprecedented prosperity
Biggest blunder: Reluctance to tackle civil rights issues
Historians' comments: "Articulated clearly the values shared by Americans"; "No hint of scandal either. The good old days"

6. Ronald Reagan

Term: 1981-89
Chief accomplishments: Confronted Soviet threat; gutted Great Society programs
Biggest blunders: Iran-contra; national debt; "We begin bombing in five minutes ..."
Historians' comments: "Brought about sea change"; "Maybe ended the cold war"; "Jury still out"

7. Lyndon B. Johnson

Term: 1963-69
Chief accomplishments: Passed Medicare, Medicaid, Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act
Biggest blunder: Vietnam War
Historians' comments: "America would have found a way to give blacks the vote without him, but don't ask me how"; "Greatest domestic legislator in history"

8. John F. Kennedy

Term: 1961-63
Chief accomplishments: Inspired nation and created Peace Corps; defused Cuban missile crisis
Biggest blunders: Bay of Pigs; increased involvement in Vietnam
Historians' comments: "Might be first-tier if he had lived longer"; "Averted a nuclear war"; "Foreign policies were disastrous"

9. George Bush

Term: 1989-93
Chief accomplishments: Assembled international coalition in Gulf War
Biggest blunders: Broke "no new taxes" pledge; made few domestic initiatives amid recession
Historians' comments: "A skilled and decent administrator"; "Lacked the 'vision thing'"

10. Bill Clinton*

Term: 1993-
Chief accomplishments: Signed balanced-budget deal; ended federal welfare guarantee
Biggest blunders: Failed to pass health-care plan; Administration plagued by scandal
Historians' comments: "Jury out here too--maybe literally!" *Only seven opinions given

11. William Howard Taft

Term: 1909-13
Chief accomplishments: Signed many antitrust laws, including corporation tax
Biggest blunder: Ineffectual "dollar diplomacy" interventions in China and Latin America
Historians' comments: "Achieved nothing good with excellent situation left him by T.R."

12. Gerald Ford

Term: 1974-77
Chief accomplishments: Ended "long national nightmare" of Watergate; got U.S. out of Vietnam
Biggest blunders: Mishandled Nixon pardon; resisted easing New York City financial woes
Historians' comments: "Returned nation to normality"; "Essentially a do-nothing President"

14. Jimmy Carter

Term: 1977-81
Chief accomplishments: Camp David accord brought temporary Middle East peace
Biggest blunder: Botched attempt to rescue 52 American hostages from U.S. embassy in Iran
Historians' comments: "Victim of events beyond his control"; "Should have been a preacher"

15. Richard Nixon

Term: 1969-74
Chief accomplishments: Opened relations with China; pursued detente with Soviet Union
Biggest blunder: Watergate--only President in history to resign
Historians' comments: "The most difficult President to assess"; "Uniquely a failure among American Presidents"

16. Warren Harding

Term: 1921-23
Chief accomplishments: Negotiated international armaments treaty in 1922
Biggest blunders: Teapot Dome oil-leasing scandal; other instances of Administration graft
Historians' comment: "Whatever personal shortcomings, presided over a period of economic growth"

17. Herbert Hoover

Term: 1929-33
Chief accomplishments: Introduced programs later copied in the New Deal
Biggest blunders: Signed Smoot-Hawley tariff; ineffective in alleviating Great Depression
Historians' comments: "Approach to Depression rigid and dogmatic"; "Victim of bad luck"

The Judges: Stephen E. Ambrose, Alan Brinkley, Robert Dallek, David M. Kennedy, William E. Leuchtenburg, Ernest R. May, Walter A. McDougall, Herbert S. Parmet, Arthur Schlesinger Jr.
Text
 

petery83

Senior member
Mar 27, 2003
479
0
0
i'm a conservative, and Reagan is one of my favorite presidents, but i still think FDR should stay
 

Maverick

Diamond Member
Jun 14, 2000
5,900
0
71
I don't think anyone but the founding fathers deserves to be on a coin...Lincoln is a stretch but he did end the civil war which would've completely torn our country apart.
 

Kenazo

Lifer
Sep 15, 2000
10,429
1
81
Originally posted by: Maverick
I don't think anyone but the founding fathers deserves to be on a coin...Lincoln is a stretch but he did end the civil war which would've completely torn our country apart.

I think it did tear your counry apart. He just sewed it back together.
 

pennylane

Diamond Member
Apr 28, 2002
6,077
1
0
FDR is ONLY the greatest President of the 20th century. Who cares about that. That's nothing special. Just throw him out for Reagan. Yeah, and I'm a Republican too.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,415
14,307
136
Originally posted by: Zebo
Pretty Cool Ranking

The Presidents: History's Judgment

When TIME asked nine presidential historians to rank, from best to worst, the 17 American Presidents of the 20th century, we left some questions to their discretion: What do we expect from our leaders? Are effective Presidents also the most significant ones? What constitutes greatness? Here is our panel's consensus:

1. Franklin D. Roosevelt

Term: 1933-45
Chief accomplishments: Rescued country from Depression; led U.S. through its greatest foreign war
Biggest blunder: Tried to "pack" the Supreme Court in 1937
Historians' comments: "Changed the landscape of American life"; "In a class by himself"; "Indisputably the century's greatest"

2. Theodore Roosevelt

Term: 1901-09
Chief accomplishments: Busted trusts; expanded public lands; increased U.S. influence abroad
Biggest blunder: Somewhat unlawful meddling in Latin America
Historians' comments: "The great prophet of affirmative government"; "The best example of an 'activist' President. Bully!"

3. Woodrow Wilson

Term: 1913-21
Chief accomplishments: Created Federal Reserve System; led country through World War I and devised League of Nations
Biggest blunder: Failed to secure domestic support for League
Historians' comments: "A great visionary who presided over major domestic advances"

4. Harry S Truman

Term: 1945-53
Chief accomplishments: Launched Marshall Plan, nato; desegregated armed services
Biggest blunder: Overreached in the Korean War
Historians' comments: "Architect of the winning strategy in the cold war"; "A decent human being with homespun virtues"


5. Dwight D. Eisenhower

Term: 1953-61
Chief accomplishments: Quietly presided over period of peace and unprecedented prosperity
Biggest blunder: Reluctance to tackle civil rights issues
Historians' comments: "Articulated clearly the values shared by Americans"; "No hint of scandal either. The good old days"

6. Ronald Reagan

Term: 1981-89
Chief accomplishments: Confronted Soviet threat; gutted Great Society programs
Biggest blunders: Iran-contra; national debt; "We begin bombing in five minutes ..."
Historians' comments: "Brought about sea change"; "Maybe ended the cold war"; "Jury still out"

7. Lyndon B. Johnson

Term: 1963-69
Chief accomplishments: Passed Medicare, Medicaid, Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act
Biggest blunder: Vietnam War
Historians' comments: "America would have found a way to give blacks the vote without him, but don't ask me how"; "Greatest domestic legislator in history"

8. John F. Kennedy

Term: 1961-63
Chief accomplishments: Inspired nation and created Peace Corps; defused Cuban missile crisis
Biggest blunders: Bay of Pigs; increased involvement in Vietnam
Historians' comments: "Might be first-tier if he had lived longer"; "Averted a nuclear war"; "Foreign policies were disastrous"

9. George Bush

Term: 1989-93
Chief accomplishments: Assembled international coalition in Gulf War
Biggest blunders: Broke "no new taxes" pledge; made few domestic initiatives amid recession
Historians' comments: "A skilled and decent administrator"; "Lacked the 'vision thing'"

10. Bill Clinton*

Term: 1993-
Chief accomplishments: Signed balanced-budget deal; ended federal welfare guarantee
Biggest blunders: Failed to pass health-care plan; Administration plagued by scandal
Historians' comments: "Jury out here too--maybe literally!" *Only seven opinions given

11. William Howard Taft

Term: 1909-13
Chief accomplishments: Signed many antitrust laws, including corporation tax
Biggest blunder: Ineffectual "dollar diplomacy" interventions in China and Latin America
Historians' comments: "Achieved nothing good with excellent situation left him by T.R."

12. Gerald Ford

Term: 1974-77
Chief accomplishments: Ended "long national nightmare" of Watergate; got U.S. out of Vietnam
Biggest blunders: Mishandled Nixon pardon; resisted easing New York City financial woes
Historians' comments: "Returned nation to normality"; "Essentially a do-nothing President"

14. Jimmy Carter

Term: 1977-81
Chief accomplishments: Camp David accord brought temporary Middle East peace
Biggest blunder: Botched attempt to rescue 52 American hostages from U.S. embassy in Iran
Historians' comments: "Victim of events beyond his control"; "Should have been a preacher"

15. Richard Nixon

Term: 1969-74
Chief accomplishments: Opened relations with China; pursued detente with Soviet Union
Biggest blunder: Watergate--only President in history to resign
Historians' comments: "The most difficult President to assess"; "Uniquely a failure among American Presidents"

16. Warren Harding

Term: 1921-23
Chief accomplishments: Negotiated international armaments treaty in 1922
Biggest blunders: Teapot Dome oil-leasing scandal; other instances of Administration graft
Historians' comment: "Whatever personal shortcomings, presided over a period of economic growth"

17. Herbert Hoover

Term: 1929-33
Chief accomplishments: Introduced programs later copied in the New Deal
Biggest blunders: Signed Smoot-Hawley tariff; ineffective in alleviating Great Depression
Historians' comments: "Approach to Depression rigid and dogmatic"; "Victim of bad luck"

The Judges: Stephen E. Ambrose, Alan Brinkley, Robert Dallek, David M. Kennedy, William E. Leuchtenburg, Ernest R. May, Walter A. McDougall, Herbert S. Parmet, Arthur Schlesinger Jr.
Text
Nice list and I agree with most of it but there were 18 presidents in the 20th century. They forgot Calvin Coolidge (1923-1929) who I would easily rank as the worst. In fact, maybe it wasn't a mistake that he was left off :p
 

vailr

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
5,365
54
91
There's no law concerning depicting "living persons" on U.S. Coinage.
As a matter of fact, there have already been at least 4 U.S. coins bearing the portrait of living persons.
These commemorative half-dollars:
1921 Alabama Centennial, Gov. T. E. Kilby.
1926 "Sesquicentennial of American Independence", Calvin Coolidge (& George Washington) half dollar.
1936 Arkansas Centennial, Sen. Joseph T. Robinson
1936 Lynchburg, VA Sesquicentennial, Sen. Carter Glass.
U.S. Postage stamps, however, DO have a "10 year" waiting period. That's why the "Elvis Stamp" wasn't issued until 1988.
Exceptions on the 10-year rule are now only allowed for former presidents.
A "Walt Disney stamp" was issued in 1969, shortly after W.D's passing: the 10-year rule was enacted some time after that.
Personally, I'd prefer all presidents taken off the coins; replaced with an allegorical "Liberty".
And no more paper $1 bills.
In 2004, the 5 cent nickel will have 2 new reverse designs, commemorating the Louisiana Purchase and the Lewis & Clark Expedition.

http://www.coinworld.com/news/111703/jefferson.asp
 

BigJelly

Golden Member
Mar 7, 2002
1,717
0
0
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: BigJelly
Did the Nazis attack the US first? No
Did Sadam attack the Us first? No
Why were the nazis bad? genocide, starts wars, used bio-chem weapons, tried to develop nukes, hated jews, oppresed his people, made a secret police force
Why is sadam bad? genocide, starts wars, used bio-chem weapons, tried to develop nukes, hated jews, oppresed his people, made a secret police force

So what you are saying is that the US was unjustified in taking down nazi germany? Cause sadam seems to share all the traits of the nazis (except for being european).
rolleye.gif

Please don't be purposefully obtuse. While the Nazi's may not have attacked the US first, they did attack our Allies with whom we had a joint-aggression pact. As the Nazis attacked those allies first (knowing that those countries were our allies), that meant that, both legally and in spirit, the Nazis did attack the US first.

And while I agree that Saddam was "bad", I strongly disagree with comparisions between him and Hitler. Hilter was far worse than Saddam could ever dream to be by several orders of magnitude. In fact, I find such comparisons insulting and ignorant. The US stood a very real chance of losing WWII. More than 100 million people around the globe died because of Hitler's war. And Hitler built his death machine in less than 6 years. Saddam is/was a petty insignificant tyrant in comparison -- in more than 30 years ruling Iraq, he never amassed enough to be even remotely a threat.

This is not to say that I oppose our actions in Iraq. It is to say, shut up, your lack of historical knowledge and respect combined with idiotic jingoism makes conservatives look stupid.

Allies? We didnt have any allies till december 8th 1941. Until then we were a neutral power with no allies. America clung to isolationism after WWI. Yes we helped the british but we were not allies. There's a history lesson for you.

Yes close to a hundred million did die in WWII. But over 50 million were chinese, as far as history goes, germany never invaded china--it was the japanese. And japan attacked china in the beginning of 1933 so by your logic japan was being led by hitler who was just gaining power in germany
rolleye.gif


The only difference between hitler and saddam is that hitler was powerful. The mindset is the same though--fueled by hatred.

Killing 300,000 isnt a threat, well jeeze you solved all americas problems because only 3000 died on sept 11, and if 300,000 isnt a threat than 3,000 can't be a threat
rolleye.gif


Comeback with evidence and facts--not made up history--to support your arguments.
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis
I want Bill Clinton on my dimes.

Never. Perhaps on a box of condoms but not coinage.

Considering how little Reagan did to address HIV, he doesn't even deserve to be on a rubber.
 

BigJelly

Golden Member
Mar 7, 2002
1,717
0
0
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis
I want Bill Clinton on my dimes.

Never. Perhaps on a box of condoms but not coinage.

Considering how little Reagan did to address HIV, he doesn't even deserve to be on a rubber.

Considering that the doctors/cdc told reagan, to stop the spread of aids, the gay bathhouses should be closed. But the gays didnt want that. Seeing that aids was spread through them and that's why it was referred to as "the gay plaque" before it was called AIDS or HIV. The gays that kept the gay bathhouse open are more responsible for spreading aids than reagan.

Hindsight is 20/20 but you don't want to see it, look it up its true. Don't make reagan the scapegoat when the gays that kept the bathhouses open were the reason aids spread like mad.
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Originally posted by: BigJelly
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: BigJelly
Did the Nazis attack the US first? No
Did Sadam attack the Us first? No
Why were the nazis bad? genocide, starts wars, used bio-chem weapons, tried to develop nukes, hated jews, oppresed his people, made a secret police force
Why is sadam bad? genocide, starts wars, used bio-chem weapons, tried to develop nukes, hated jews, oppresed his people, made a secret police force

So what you are saying is that the US was unjustified in taking down nazi germany? Cause sadam seems to share all the traits of the nazis (except for being european).
rolleye.gif

Please don't be purposefully obtuse. While the Nazi's may not have attacked the US first, they did attack our Allies with whom we had a joint-aggression pact. As the Nazis attacked those allies first (knowing that those countries were our allies), that meant that, both legally and in spirit, the Nazis did attack the US first.

And while I agree that Saddam was "bad", I strongly disagree with comparisions between him and Hitler. Hilter was far worse than Saddam could ever dream to be by several orders of magnitude. In fact, I find such comparisons insulting and ignorant. The US stood a very real chance of losing WWII. More than 100 million people around the globe died because of Hitler's war. And Hitler built his death machine in less than 6 years. Saddam is/was a petty insignificant tyrant in comparison -- in more than 30 years ruling Iraq, he never amassed enough to be even remotely a threat.

This is not to say that I oppose our actions in Iraq. It is to say, shut up, your lack of historical knowledge and respect combined with idiotic jingoism makes conservatives look stupid.

Allies? We didnt have any allies till december 8th 1941. Until then we were a neutral power with no allies. America clung to isolationism after WWI. Yes we helped the british but we were not allies. There's a history lesson for you.

Yes close to a hundred million did die in WWII. But over 50 million were chinese, as far as history goes, germany never invaded china--it was the japanese. And japan attacked china in the beginning of 1933 so by your logic japan was being led by hitler who was just gaining power in germany
rolleye.gif


The only difference between hitler and saddam is that hitler was powerful. The mindset is the same though--fueled by hatred.

Killing 300,000 isnt a threat, well jeeze you solved all americas problems because only 3000 died on sept 11, and if 300,000 isnt a threat than 3,000 can't be a threat
rolleye.gif


Comeback with evidence and facts--not made up history--to support your arguments.

9/11 has been blown way out of proportion. If you are gonna spend $87000000000, you can prevent hell of a lot more than 3000 deaths. You could buy $1000 worth of presctiptions for 87000000 seniors who can't afford them for example. Or pay $100000 for 870000 lifesaving surgeries. That such an event would trigger two wars, out of control government spending, panic, huge market decline, etc, just goes to show what a bunch of sissies we are over here. Suck it up.
 

So

Lifer
Jul 2, 2001
25,921
14
81
Originally posted by: FeathersMcGraw
Just put Reagan on the Sacagawea dollar. The country's already forgotten about them.

<my opinion> I want a poll option!! Reagan on the dollar coin!
 

BigJelly

Golden Member
Mar 7, 2002
1,717
0
0
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: BigJelly
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: BigJelly
Did the Nazis attack the US first? No
Did Sadam attack the Us first? No
Why were the nazis bad? genocide, starts wars, used bio-chem weapons, tried to develop nukes, hated jews, oppresed his people, made a secret police force
Why is sadam bad? genocide, starts wars, used bio-chem weapons, tried to develop nukes, hated jews, oppresed his people, made a secret police force

So what you are saying is that the US was unjustified in taking down nazi germany? Cause sadam seems to share all the traits of the nazis (except for being european).
rolleye.gif

Please don't be purposefully obtuse. While the Nazi's may not have attacked the US first, they did attack our Allies with whom we had a joint-aggression pact. As the Nazis attacked those allies first (knowing that those countries were our allies), that meant that, both legally and in spirit, the Nazis did attack the US first.

And while I agree that Saddam was "bad", I strongly disagree with comparisions between him and Hitler. Hilter was far worse than Saddam could ever dream to be by several orders of magnitude. In fact, I find such comparisons insulting and ignorant. The US stood a very real chance of losing WWII. More than 100 million people around the globe died because of Hitler's war. And Hitler built his death machine in less than 6 years. Saddam is/was a petty insignificant tyrant in comparison -- in more than 30 years ruling Iraq, he never amassed enough to be even remotely a threat.

This is not to say that I oppose our actions in Iraq. It is to say, shut up, your lack of historical knowledge and respect combined with idiotic jingoism makes conservatives look stupid.

Allies? We didnt have any allies till december 8th 1941. Until then we were a neutral power with no allies. America clung to isolationism after WWI. Yes we helped the british but we were not allies. There's a history lesson for you.

Yes close to a hundred million did die in WWII. But over 50 million were chinese, as far as history goes, germany never invaded china--it was the japanese. And japan attacked china in the beginning of 1933 so by your logic japan was being led by hitler who was just gaining power in germany
rolleye.gif


The only difference between hitler and saddam is that hitler was powerful. The mindset is the same though--fueled by hatred.

Killing 300,000 isnt a threat, well jeeze you solved all americas problems because only 3000 died on sept 11, and if 300,000 isnt a threat than 3,000 can't be a threat
rolleye.gif


Comeback with evidence and facts--not made up history--to support your arguments.

9/11 has been blown way out of proportion. If you are gonna spend $87000000000, you can prevent hell of a lot more than 3000 deaths. You could buy $1000 worth of presctiptions for 87000000 seniors who can't afford them for example. Or pay $100000 for 870000 lifesaving surgeries. That such an event would trigger two wars, out of control government spending, panic, huge market decline, etc, just goes to show what a bunch of sissies we are over here. Suck it up.

Sissies? Because we went there and kick their @ss? The sissies were the frenchies and russians that maid business deals with saddam to make money instead of doing the right thing and remove him from power. We spend $87 billion to prevent a terrorist attack that would make 9-11 look like nothing, thats money well spent.
 

coolVariable

Diamond Member
May 18, 2001
3,724
0
76
Yeah! Finally get that communist lover of our good money!!!
And I hate how people credit him for reviving the ecomony during the great depression!
EVERY single one of his programs failed till a guy named Hitler came around and started a war onto which Roosevelt jumped too (and probably committed a war crime by allowing Pearl Harbor to happen, although there was information about the comign attack).
Stupid war criminal!

 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Originally posted by: BigJelly
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: BigJelly
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: BigJelly
Did the Nazis attack the US first? No
Did Sadam attack the Us first? No
Why were the nazis bad? genocide, starts wars, used bio-chem weapons, tried to develop nukes, hated jews, oppresed his people, made a secret police force
Why is sadam bad? genocide, starts wars, used bio-chem weapons, tried to develop nukes, hated jews, oppresed his people, made a secret police force

So what you are saying is that the US was unjustified in taking down nazi germany? Cause sadam seems to share all the traits of the nazis (except for being european).
rolleye.gif

Please don't be purposefully obtuse. While the Nazi's may not have attacked the US first, they did attack our Allies with whom we had a joint-aggression pact. As the Nazis attacked those allies first (knowing that those countries were our allies), that meant that, both legally and in spirit, the Nazis did attack the US first.

And while I agree that Saddam was "bad", I strongly disagree with comparisions between him and Hitler. Hilter was far worse than Saddam could ever dream to be by several orders of magnitude. In fact, I find such comparisons insulting and ignorant. The US stood a very real chance of losing WWII. More than 100 million people around the globe died because of Hitler's war. And Hitler built his death machine in less than 6 years. Saddam is/was a petty insignificant tyrant in comparison -- in more than 30 years ruling Iraq, he never amassed enough to be even remotely a threat.

This is not to say that I oppose our actions in Iraq. It is to say, shut up, your lack of historical knowledge and respect combined with idiotic jingoism makes conservatives look stupid.

Allies? We didnt have any allies till december 8th 1941. Until then we were a neutral power with no allies. America clung to isolationism after WWI. Yes we helped the british but we were not allies. There's a history lesson for you.

Yes close to a hundred million did die in WWII. But over 50 million were chinese, as far as history goes, germany never invaded china--it was the japanese. And japan attacked china in the beginning of 1933 so by your logic japan was being led by hitler who was just gaining power in germany
rolleye.gif


The only difference between hitler and saddam is that hitler was powerful. The mindset is the same though--fueled by hatred.

Killing 300,000 isnt a threat, well jeeze you solved all americas problems because only 3000 died on sept 11, and if 300,000 isnt a threat than 3,000 can't be a threat
rolleye.gif


Comeback with evidence and facts--not made up history--to support your arguments.

9/11 has been blown way out of proportion. If you are gonna spend $87000000000, you can prevent hell of a lot more than 3000 deaths. You could buy $1000 worth of presctiptions for 87000000 seniors who can't afford them for example. Or pay $100000 for 870000 lifesaving surgeries. That such an event would trigger two wars, out of control government spending, panic, huge market decline, etc, just goes to show what a bunch of sissies we are over here. Suck it up.

Sissies? Because we went there and kick their @ss? The sissies were the frenchies and russians that maid business deals with saddam to make money instead of doing the right thing and remove him from power. We spend $87 billion to prevent a terrorist attack that would make 9-11 look like nothing, thats money well spent.

Oh yeah, I forgot Saddam was going to attack us with WMD's he was going to launch in 45 minutes. :)
Maybe he'll get a genie to make them for him, and a magic carpet to deliver them :D
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Originally posted by: coolVariable
Yeah! Finally get that communist lover of our good money!!!
And I hate how people credit him for reviving the ecomony during the great depression!
EVERY single one of his programs failed till a guy named Hitler came around and started a war onto which Roosevelt jumped too (and probably committed a war crime by allowing Pearl Harbor to happen, although there was information about the comign attack).
Stupid war criminal!

You are pretty pathetic.