How we judge Presidents!

SmarterThanYou said:
funny. we used to have a justice system in this country that had, as it's precept, 'innocent until proven guilty'. I guess some people would rather have people prove their innocence now.
so onceler, why don't you just go ahead and turn yourself in to the police today with a full confession.
Click to expand...

So everyone who was never convicted, of anything, is innocent?

That's such a relief.
 
Onceler said:
So everyone who was never convicted, of anything, is innocent?

That's such a relief.
Click to expand...

No one is talking about "innocence" here. The claim was made that Reagan "broke the law" and that is not factually accurate. He wasn't charged or convicted of breaking the law, after several years of trying by the liberal left. So, in true liberal fashion, when someone can't be convicted by the courts or even charged with a crime, you just PROCLAIM them guilty in the court of public opinion, and smear their good name anyway. Apparently, pinheads have become so accustomed to this practice, they believe it takes the place of the courts.
 
Onceler said:
So everyone who was never convicted, of anything, is innocent?

That's such a relief.
Click to expand...
used to be that way, yes. that is, until the whole divide of conservative/liberal grabbed hold in this nation. Now, conservatives view people as if they've been arrested, they are guilty and should be punished by rape in jail, loss of property, or beatings by the police. Liberals believe everyone is a criminal that hasn't been caught yet, unless you're a conservative. then they should be punished in any way possible even before charges and/or trial.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
used to be that way, yes. that is, until the whole divide of conservative/liberal grabbed hold in this nation. Now, conservatives view people as if they've been arrested, they are guilty and should be punished by rape in jail, loss of property, or beatings by the police. Liberals believe everyone is a criminal that hasn't been caught yet, unless you're a conservative. then they should be punished in any way possible even before charges and/or trial.
Click to expand...

Reagan and Bush were guilty IMO, but they were able to elude justice, not because of what they did, but because of who they were
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Then please explain to me why Taft tried to undue most of TR's progressive reforms?
Click to expand...

He didn't. Here's Wiki's take on the difference between Teddy and Taft in Domestic Policy:

Taft considered himself a progressive because of his deep belief in the law as the scientific device that should be used by judges to solve society's problems. Taft proved a less adroit politician than Roosevelt and seemed to lack the energy and personal magnetism of his mentor, not to mention the publicity devices, the dedicated supporters, and the broad base of public support that made Roosevelt so formidable. When Roosevelt realized that lowering the tariff would risk severe tensions inside the Republican Party, pitting producers (manufacturers and farmers) against department stores and consumers, he stopped talking about the issue. Taft ignored the risks and tackled the tariff boldly, on the one hand encouraging reformers to fight for lower rates, and then on the other hand cutting deals with conservative leaders that kept overall rates high. The resulting Payne-Aldrich Tariff Act of 1909 was too high for most reformers...

Unlike Roosevelt, Taft never attacked business or businessmen in his rhetoric. However, he was attentive to the law, so he launched 90 antitrust suits, including one against the country's largest corporation, U.S. Steel, for an acquisition that Roosevelt personally had approved. As a result, Taft lost the support of antitrust reformers (who disliked his conservative rhetoric), of big business (which disliked his actions), and of Roosevelt, who felt humiliated by his protégé.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Howard_Taft
 
Bfgrn said:
Reagan and Bush were guilty IMO, but they were able to elude justice, not because of what they did, but because of who they were
Click to expand...

This is just not factually accurate either. Plenty of investigation was done, courts heard the cases, testimony was presented, evidence was looked at.... and at the end of the day, there was no charge or conviction of Bush or Reagan. It wasn't excused because of who they were, it was relentlessly pursued, precisely because of who they were! And no charge was ever made because it couldn't be proven Bush or Reagan broke the law. Your OPINION is not a conviction or proof of guilt. Sorry!
 
Dixie said:
This is just not factually accurate either. Plenty of investigation was done, courts heard the cases, testimony was presented, evidence was looked at.... and at the end of the day, there was no charge or conviction of Bush or Reagan. It wasn't excused because of who they were, it was relentlessly pursued, precisely because of who they were! And no charge was ever made because it couldn't be proven Bush or Reagan broke the law. Your OPINION is not a conviction or proof of guilt. Sorry!
Click to expand...

Yeah sure, Dixie. The legal system sucked regarding reagan/bush.

It couldn't be proven in court that O.J. Simpson murdered two people but we all know in our hearts that he did. Same with reagan on Iran-Contra.
 
tom prendergast said:
I am just wondering how history would have treated Jimmy Carter differently if the hostage mission in Iran had been successful?
Click to expand...

He'd have more of a mixed legacy, but there would still be the economy.

Of course, had it worked, it's plausible that he could have won re-election...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top