Member List
Calendar
F.A.Q.
Search
Log Out
Pokemon Forum - Pokemon Elite 2000  
 

Go Back   Pokemon Forum - Pokemon Elite 2000 » Other Boards » Discussion

Discussion This is for discussion about current events (news), issues, politics, and any other topics of serious discussion. For more casual talk, go to the Other Chat board. Proper sentences, spelling, and grammar is especially strict in this board.


Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 12-13-2010, 04:03 PM
Ender the Xenocide's Avatar
Ender the Xenocide Offline
Amateur Trainer
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 56
Default Good Presidents always die? [Somewhat a joke]

It seems almost all good people die from assassinations. Look at good old Abraham Lincoln. Saved the blacks from total slavery he did, but then got his head popped. JFK helped bring an end to the Space Race, ended the Cuban Missile Crisis, and got his head blown off. Ronald Reagan ended the Soviet threat, almost got assassinated twice. And several more. Do all good presidents get assassinated? Well, when I am voting in two years, I suppose I will just vote for the one more likely to be assassinated...
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 12-13-2010, 04:17 PM
Rival Silver's Avatar
Rival Silver Offline
Elite Trainer
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Johto
Posts: 565
Default Re: Good Presidents always die? [Somewhat a joke]

Presidents always bring change, and some people don't like change. The better the president the more change and more hate for change thats not benificial to those people (Taken the slaves from the Plantation owner = Hate on Lincoln) which causes the bigger likelyhood that they will try to kill the president.
__________________

<--- Credit to Doodlebop|Credit to Temporal Snake
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-13-2010, 05:08 PM
Phantasm.Angel's Avatar
Phantasm.Angel Offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota
Posts: 3,317
Send a message via AIM to Phantasm.Angel
Default Re: Good Presidents always die? [Somewhat a joke]

William Henry Harrison was a pretty lackluster dude. Although I guess he had it coming by giving a two hour speech in the pouring rain with no coat on...
__________________
"You see, in life, the road to darkness is a journey, not a light switch."

paired with the marvelous Eternal Moonlight, creator of the above
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 12-13-2010, 05:11 PM
DaRkUmBrEoN's Avatar
DaRkUmBrEoN Offline
M.D.
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Holland
Posts: 7,874
Send a message via AIM to DaRkUmBrEoN Send a message via Yahoo to DaRkUmBrEoN
Default Re: Good Presidents always die? [Somewhat a joke]

Every president is capable of greatness. Most just overcompensate with failure. That's why these dead presidents seem so good.

Then again, Lincoln was good in a time when being good was hard work.
__________________

Near a tree by a river, there's a hole in the ground.
Where an old man of Aran goes around and around
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 12-13-2010, 09:40 PM
Lusankya's Avatar
Lusankya Offline
Deus ex Crucio
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,687
Default Re: Good Presidents always die? [Somewhat a joke]

More like, we think they are good because they died. JFK was regarded as a meh President at best while he was alive, a overly promiscuous shame to the American people who screwed up the whole Bay of Pigs thing and embarrassed America at a time when Communism seemed to be taking over the world at worst.
__________________

Art Gallery
Dali: "I know what the picture should be ... We take a duck and put some dynamite in its derriere. When the duck explodes, I jump and you take the picture."
Halsman: "Don't forget that we are in America. We will be put in prison if we start exploding ducks."
Dali: "You're right. Let's take some cats and splash them with water."
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 12-13-2010, 10:24 PM
Lord Celebi's Avatar
Lord Celebi Offline
Zhu-Quiao
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 13,317
Send a message via AIM to Lord Celebi Send a message via Skype™ to Lord Celebi
Default Re: Good Presidents always die? [Somewhat a joke]

Monroe and Roosevelt weren't assassinated. :/ Lincoln wasn't that great, really. Emancipation Proclamation had absolutely no teeth, and martial law in Maryland set a horrible precedent.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12-13-2010, 11:10 PM
Lusankya's Avatar
Lusankya Offline
Deus ex Crucio
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,687
Default Re: Good Presidents always die? [Somewhat a joke]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Celebi View Post
Monroe and Roosevelt weren't assassinated. :/ Lincoln wasn't that great, really. Emancipation Proclamation had absolutely no teeth, and martial law in Maryland set a horrible precedent.
Its teeth was the advancing ranks of the Union Army. By Antietam the outcome of the war could only be doubted by the most staunch Southerner. Also, its intent wasn't to make slavery illegal. It was a wartime measure to weaken the South by giving slaves more reason to escape and defect to fight for the North. It also helped international opinion to favor the North. Like it or not, the EP was a brilliant piece of work.

Lincoln believed that blacks were inferior to whites, despite believing that slavery was morally wrong. He was also the closest the US ever came to becoming a dictatorship, having basically given the finger to Congress for his presidency (possibly a necessary measure).

So yeah, Lincoln wasn't this perfect island of calm, rational thought in the middle of a chaotic era. He was as human as anyone else. Was he a great President? Definitely. But not the perfect man modern America makes him out to be.
__________________

Art Gallery
Dali: "I know what the picture should be ... We take a duck and put some dynamite in its derriere. When the duck explodes, I jump and you take the picture."
Halsman: "Don't forget that we are in America. We will be put in prison if we start exploding ducks."
Dali: "You're right. Let's take some cats and splash them with water."
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 12-14-2010, 11:04 PM
Blood Red Lucario's Avatar
Blood Red Lucario Offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Aboard Starship Enterprise
Posts: 473
Send a message via AIM to Blood Red Lucario Send a message via Yahoo to Blood Red Lucario
Default Re: Good Presidents always die? [Somewhat a joke]

Depends on what is considered a "good" president. I haven't seen Clinton shot at and he did quite a lot when he was in office. And Bush claiming one of the highest approval ratings in U.S. history only got a shoe thrown at him.
__________________

Absol Hatches: 27 Level 100: 312

All credit goes to Knightblazer
URPG
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 12-14-2010, 11:10 PM
Lusankya's Avatar
Lusankya Offline
Deus ex Crucio
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,687
Default Re: Good Presidents always die? [Somewhat a joke]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blood Red Lucario View Post
Depends on what is considered a "good" president. I haven't seen Clinton shot at and he did quite a lot when he was in office. And Bush claiming one of the highest approval ratings in U.S. history only got a shoe thrown at him.
Bush didn't get a high approval rating for anything he did.
__________________

Art Gallery
Dali: "I know what the picture should be ... We take a duck and put some dynamite in its derriere. When the duck explodes, I jump and you take the picture."
Halsman: "Don't forget that we are in America. We will be put in prison if we start exploding ducks."
Dali: "You're right. Let's take some cats and splash them with water."
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 12-14-2010, 11:26 PM
Blood Red Lucario's Avatar
Blood Red Lucario Offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Aboard Starship Enterprise
Posts: 473
Send a message via AIM to Blood Red Lucario Send a message via Yahoo to Blood Red Lucario
Default Re: Good Presidents always die? [Somewhat a joke]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lusankya View Post
Bush didn't get a high approval rating for anything he did.
He still claims the highest approval rating as a President. Go back and look right after 9/11 you'd be pleasantly surprised.
__________________

Absol Hatches: 27 Level 100: 312

All credit goes to Knightblazer
URPG
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 12-15-2010, 02:24 AM
Exon Auxus's Avatar
Exon Auxus Offline
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: No.
Posts: 6,079
Send a message via AIM to Exon Auxus
Default Re: Good Presidents always die? [Somewhat a joke]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lusankya View Post
Bush didn't get a high approval rating for anything he did.
About 90% directly after 9/11, the highest approval rating of all time. :x

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lusankya View Post
Its teeth was the advancing ranks of the Union Army. By Antietam the outcome of the war could only be doubted by the most staunch Southerner. Also, its intent wasn't to make slavery illegal. It was a wartime measure to weaken the South by giving slaves more reason to escape and defect to fight for the North. It also helped international opinion to favor the North. Like it or not, the EP was a brilliant piece of work.

Lincoln believed that blacks were inferior to whites, despite believing that slavery was morally wrong. He was also the closest the US ever came to becoming a dictatorship, having basically given the finger to Congress for his presidency (possibly a necessary measure).

So yeah, Lincoln wasn't this perfect island of calm, rational thought in the middle of a chaotic era. He was as human as anyone else. Was he a great President? Definitely. But not the perfect man modern America makes him out to be.
I don't think Lincoln was the closest the US ever came to becoming a dictatorship; Franklin Roosevelt was, by far. Most contemporary historians agree, chiefly because of his almost four terms in office (and probably more had he not died). Another reason was his "packing" of the Supreme Court, trying to increase the number of justices. Not to say that he wasn't a superb president, but he was essentially King Roosevelt.

Lincoln, on the other hand, was simply trying to preserve the Union. It's just that there had been so much radical action that had already separated the North and the South. There was the new Free-Soil party, "Bleeding Kansas", Preston Brooks beating Sumner silly, John Brown's famous raid, and many more. I agree that he did have many flaws, but you will find that any presidential ranking system will 99.9% of the time rank Abraham Lincoln as number one in terms of success. And think about it, his assassination turned out bad for the South because he was more of a "nice guy", and the radical northern republicans essentially wanted to punish southern slave states for their treason. Lincoln favored a peaceful resolution to prevent any future secession. Much to the dismay of those republicans, Andrew Johnson followed many of Lincoln's ideals when he came into office.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Lusankya View Post
Its teeth was the advancing ranks of the Union Army. By Antietam the outcome of the war could only be doubted by the most staunch Southerne.
I don't think so. Before Antietam the war didn't have such a clear winner. The North had some critical victories in the West, but they were still spanked at some important engagements, including Lee's victory in the Second Battle of Bull Run and the siege of Fort Sumter which started the war. And then you have to remember, Lincoln went through a number of generals because it almost seemed that every one he brought in screwed something up. McDowell was replaced with McClellan, who gave up two easy chances to destroy Lee's army. Then he chose Ambrose Burnside who lost his very first battle. After that, he took Joseph Hooker who also lost one of his first battles and was a heavy drinker. Finally after that, he used George G. Meade. That's a lot of cycling of generals in what was not even a year's time. But it is true that Lee's army did begin a general retreat after Antietam (until he decided to invade Pennsylvania).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ender the Xenocide View Post
It seems almost all good people die from assassinations. Look at good old Abraham Lincoln. Saved the blacks from total slavery he did, but then got his head popped. JFK helped bring an end to the Space Race, ended the Cuban Missile Crisis, and got his head blown off. Ronald Reagan ended the Soviet threat, almost got assassinated twice. And several more. Do all good presidents get assassinated? Well, when I am voting in two years, I suppose I will just vote for the one more likely to be assassinated...
Ronald Reagan did not end the Soviet threat...As a matter of fact, he made it worse. He pulled funds out of most government-funded public programs and redirected that money into his Strategic Defense Initiative (satirically called "Star Wars"), which was supposed to help the country's defense. If anything this made that issue worse, and Reagan was never in any kind of joking mood with the Soviets. He was like Andrew Jackson was with the threat of seccession by South Carolina in the 1830s - he just didn't put up with it.

Really, Cold War problems didn't start to dwindle until Gorbaschev's implication of the two classes, Perestroika and Glasnov. That happened in George H. W. Bush's presidency if I remember correctly, though he kind of came into office when the Cold War was dying anyway.
__________________

Last edited by Exon Auxus; 12-15-2010 at 11:34 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 12-15-2010, 09:45 PM
Lusankya's Avatar
Lusankya Offline
Deus ex Crucio
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,687
Default Re: Good Presidents always die? [Somewhat a joke]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Exon Auxus View Post
About 90% directly after 9/11, the highest approval rating of all time. :x
... Which is completely besides the point. He didn't do anything to get that 90% approval rate. Al-Qaeda did. That approval rate has absolutely nothing to do with his skill as President.


Quote:
I don't think Lincoln was the closest the US ever came to becoming a dictatorship; Franklin Roosevelt was, by far. Most contemporary historians agree, chiefly because of his almost four terms in office (and probably more had he not died). Another reason was his "packing" of the Supreme Court, trying to increase the number of justices. Not to say that he wasn't a superb president, but he was essentially King Roosevelt.
Not really, Roosevelt didn't even want to go for the extra terms intially, but felt that having a change of leadership in a time of crisis (Great Depression -> WWII) would have been rather bad policy. I agree.

Quote:
Lincoln, on the other hand, was simply trying to preserve the Union. It's just that there had been so much radical action that had already separated the North and the South. There was the new Free-Soil party, "Bleeding Kansas", Preston Brooks beating Sumner silly, John Brown's famous raid, and many more. I agree that he did have many flaws, but you will find that any presidential ranking system will 99.9% of the time rank Abraham Lincoln as number one in terms of success. And think about it, his assassination turned out bad for the South because he was more of a "nice guy", and the radical northern republicans essentially wanted to punish southern slave states for their treason. Lincoln favored a peaceful resolution to prevent any future secession. Much to the dismay of those republicans, Andrew Johnson followed many of Lincoln's ideals when he came into office.
Lincoln imposed martial law, jailed many dissenters that didn't actually pose a threat to the Union, ignored both Congress and the Supreme Court in all matters, and generally did whatever the hell he damn well pleased for the entire war. Being a "nice guy" doesn't change that.


Quote:
I don't think so. Before Antietam the war didn't have such a clear winner. The North had some critical victories in the West, but they were still spanked at some important engagements, including Lee's victory in the Second Battle of Bull Run and the siege of Fort Sumter which started the war. And then you have to remember, Lincoln went through a number of generals because it almost seemed that every one he brought in screwed something up. McDowell was replaced with McClellan, who gave up two easy chances to destroy Lee's army. Then he chose Ambrose Burnside who lost his very first battle. After that, he took Joseph Hooker who also lost one of his first battles and was a heavy drinker. Finally after that, he used George G. Meade. That's a lot of cycling of generals in what was not even a year's time. But it is true that Lee's army did begin a general retreat after Antietam (until he decided to invade Pennsylvania).
Aaand the Emancipation Proclamation was made after Antietam... so yeah.


Quote:
Ronald Reagan did not end the Soviet threat...As a matter of fact, he made it worse. He pulled funds out of most government-funded public programs and redirected that money into his Strategic Defense Initiative (satirically called "Star Wars"), which was supposed to help the country's defense. If anything this made that issue worse, and Reagan was never in any kind of joking mood with the Soviets. He was like Andrew Jackson was with the threat of seccession by South Carolina in the 1830s - he just didn't put up with it.
Which was all good. Reagan spent the Soviets into the ground, put immense amounts of pressure on them politically and economically. Basically, he called their bluff. The Soviets had been acting tough since WWII, Reagan was the first US President to truly stand up to them, and that contributed immensely to the ultimate fall of the USSR.
__________________

Art Gallery
Dali: "I know what the picture should be ... We take a duck and put some dynamite in its derriere. When the duck explodes, I jump and you take the picture."
Halsman: "Don't forget that we are in America. We will be put in prison if we start exploding ducks."
Dali: "You're right. Let's take some cats and splash them with water."

Last edited by Lusankya; 12-15-2010 at 09:48 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 12-16-2010, 12:37 AM
Exon Auxus's Avatar
Exon Auxus Offline
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: No.
Posts: 6,079
Send a message via AIM to Exon Auxus
Default Re: Good Presidents always die? [Somewhat a joke]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lusankya View Post
... Which is completely besides the point. He didn't do anything to get that 90% approval rate. Al-Qaeda did. That approval rate has absolutely nothing to do with his skill as President.

No, it's the exact point. You said he never got a high approval rating for anything he did but you were completely wrong, and unfortunately for you, there's cold hard evidence to show it. I don't think you remember that Bush was at Ground Zero the very next day and gave a speech that essentially said that we as a country would stand up and combat the terrorist threat. In a time of crisis, the public look towards its leader to defend the country with a calm but firm hand. And honestly, Bush's actions concerning 9/11 were, in fact, beneficial to the country. Therefore, that approval rating had everything to do with what he did.

Not really, Roosevelt didn't even want to go for the extra terms intially, but felt that having a change of leadership in a time of crisis (Great Depression -> WWII) would have been rather bad policy. I agree.

Alright, now nowhere in that post did you see me say that Roosevelt wanted extra terms. I'm using the very fact that he did break the tradition that had really been in place since Washington. Fact remains that he was an extremely powerful president that broke many milestones that had been set before him regarding power. Whether or not he wanted that power is both arguable and irrelevant. If I'm robbing a bank but I really don't want to, it doesn't change the fact that I'm doing it. :l

Lincoln imposed martial law, jailed many dissenters that didn't actually pose a threat to the Union, ignored both Congress and the Supreme Court in all matters, and generally did whatever the hell he damn well pleased for the entire war. Being a "nice guy" doesn't change that.

As the president, he's the Commander-in-Chief - he runs the military. So, he could do "whatever the hell he damn well pleased". Remember, here we're arguing about the most powerful president in US history. If you're going to use this to support the notion that Lincoln is, then you need to use the same criteria with other presidents. This time I'm going to use Andrew Jackson, given the qualities that you are using to define as "powerful".

Jackson removed plenty of well-educated government officials and replaced them with, basically, common folk under his "spoils system". He also authorized the removal of all Indian tribes with the Indian Removal Act of 1830. This led to the Supreme Court case, Worcester v. Georgia, in which the Cherokee Nation argued that it acted as its own political entity; the Supreme Court sided with them, but Jackson refused to support that decision and removed them anyway. He used United States troops to forcibly march the Cherokees to the West. This is where the famous "Trail of Tears" comes from. So if we're discussing a president's disregard of the other branches of government, then there just doesn't exist a more crystal clear example than that...but moving on.

Now let's discuss his bank war. In short, he detested the National Bank, operated by Nicholas Biddle, and was determined to dismantle it. Henry Clay and Daniel Webster proposed a bank recharter bill fearing that Jackson could too easily destroy the bank even before the charter expired in 1836. Congress passed that bill, which Jackson proceeded to veto. Exercising this muscle over Congress this time, he was satirically called, "King Jackson I". And yes, there exist actual paintings that coincide with this satire. He then defeated Henry Clay in the next presidential election and removed federal deposits from the bank. The point is that if you are labeling Lincoln as "the closest the US ever came to a dictatorship" solely because of his disregard of the Supreme Court and Congress (which actually passed a handful of acts without Lincoln's interference...) then I'm afraid you are greatly mistaken.


Aaand the Emancipation Proclamation was made after Antietam... so yeah.

Aaand once again you're arguing something that I didn't say. Nowhere in that post did I say anything about the Emancipation Proclamation, only that there was no clear winner of the war before Antietam. Proving a topic right that I'm not even discussing is not really worth much.


Which was all good. Reagan spent the Soviets into the ground, put immense amounts of pressure on them politically and economically. Basically, he called their bluff. The Soviets had been acting tough since WWII, Reagan was the first US President to truly stand up to them, and that contributed immensely to the ultimate fall of the USSR.

The Cold War is just general term applied to the number of occurrences that the US and Soviets had from WWII until really, the early 1990s. Reagan was not the only president to stand up to this. To ignore Kennedy would just be a complete failure. In 1961 he asked for an increase in defense funding (somewhat similar to Reagan) and he authorized nuclear testing after learning that the Soviets had begun testing of nuclear weapons in September of 1961. And of course there was the Cuban Missile Crisis, where he blockaded Cuba until all of the missiles there that were capable of attacking the US were removed. Hmm...looks to me that he stood up to them too eh?

And don't forget Jimmy Carter, who also stood up to the Soviets. No, he wasn't as vigorous or hot-headed as Reagan on the subject, but that's just because he favored a peaceful resolution. He worked with the Soviets to make the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty II, which set a limit of 2,250 bombers and missiles for the US and the Soviets. He was more of a diplomat than an enemy, but that doesn't mean he was afraid to "stand up to them".

All of this contributed to the fall of the USSR. But problems remained, really, until the Bush-Gorbachev meetings when they agreed that the Cold War was over in about 1989. They also worked together to create START, the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, cutting each sides nuclear weapons by about 30 percent. Notice that the problems didn't really end until peaceful discussions were made. So no, Reagan's spending on a super cool laser defense program was not "good". It only increased dissent between US and Russia.
With all due respect, this time I implore you to really read what I am saying and make an argument based on it.
__________________

Last edited by Exon Auxus; 12-16-2010 at 12:41 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 12-17-2010, 05:45 PM
Masami Offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Im British, Its not a big deal.
Posts: 898
Send a message via AIM to Masami Send a message via MSN to Masami
Default Re: Good Presidents always die? [Somewhat a joke]

Not really, all presidents who die are considered to be good, almost like Martyrs.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 12-18-2010, 04:39 AM
Lord Celebi's Avatar
Lord Celebi Offline
Zhu-Quiao
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 13,317
Send a message via AIM to Lord Celebi Send a message via Skype™ to Lord Celebi
Default Re: Good Presidents always die? [Somewhat a joke]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lusankya View Post
Its teeth was the advancing ranks of the Union Army. By Antietam the outcome of the war could only be doubted by the most staunch Southerner. Also, its intent wasn't to make slavery illegal. It was a wartime measure to weaken the South by giving slaves more reason to escape and defect to fight for the North. It also helped international opinion to favor the North. Like it or not, the EP was a brilliant piece of work.

Lincoln believed that blacks were inferior to whites, despite believing that slavery was morally wrong. He was also the closest the US ever came to becoming a dictatorship, having basically given the finger to Congress for his presidency (possibly a necessary measure).

So yeah, Lincoln wasn't this perfect island of calm, rational thought in the middle of a chaotic era. He was as human as anyone else. Was he a great President? Definitely. But not the perfect man modern America makes him out to be.
Yes, but Lincoln didn't "Free the Slaves." He condemned slavery in an area of rebellion, but still allowed slavery in three states and the counties still loyal to the Union. People cite Lincoln freeing the slaves as a reason that he was great, which is what I was rebuking.

Also, McClellan was the worst general OF ALL TIME.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:35 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Style Design: AlienSector.com