Well, the copy of the speech he had in his pocket did slow the bullet down, probably saving his life, but it still entered his chest.

Not entirely that simple, no (although economics can be just that simple at times), but the war was the major determining factor in the economic turnaround, while the effect of Roosevelt's policies was mostly indifferent.

Which Roosevelt was fully aware of and would have taken advantage of a lot sooner if not for the American public.

This is true.

I think the worst of everything he did was to start defecit spending.

Reagan.

lol...Reagan

I'd say Harry S. Truman.

Yeah, truman was an excellent president.. I'm gonna say he's number 2.

Hairy-*** truman.

blowjob billy

lawl

Yeah, it's a bit dead, but this is still an important realization:
My new favorite is George Washington

-... Language warning.

[QUOTE=Cool Matty]Ulysses! Yay for drunk presidents! I pick him only cause he was a damn good general, not cause of his presidency. :D[/QUOTE]

Grant was awesome. Plus, those were the days you could just saddle up, head over to Washington, and knock one back with the President in a hotel lobby. And it wasn't that hard to burst into the President's office, either.

Eisenhower, too, seems awesome. And Pierce. I think I have a trend of supporting "Military Imperial" America presidents... Manifest Destiny, anyone? Try pitching that to the American people today.

I hate every last one of them.

Rob, I hereby declare you PUBLIC ENEMY NUMBER ONE.

The FBI will show up at your house shortly to investigate your subversiveness.

Clinton. Barring Clinton, I'd say either Jefferson or TR. Clinton really helped our nation--9% unemployment ftw.

Well, I am born on Grant's birthday.

PFFFT.

I work with a homeland security agent.

He's an even bigger nihilist then I am.

[QUOTE=Cool Matty]Ulysses! Yay for drunk presidents! I pick him only cause he was a damn good general, not cause of his presidency. :D[/QUOTE]

If not giving a damn about how many soldiers you lose makes you a good general, then Grant is the King.

Otherwise, he almost always got the hell beat out of him on the battlefield. He could come up with good genera plan, but that's about it.

This one!

*smacks forehead*

Ronald Wilson Reagan. Hands down.

Or not. There aren't any Socialist countries today. The remaining "communist" countries in truth are not and never were Communist countries either. I honestly have no idea why you would think that way.

Socialism and Marxism are bankrupt ideas, and history has proved it many times before.

You're just a greedy Imperialist OMG

No, there just really aren't any socialist countries in the modern world, and I'd even go as far as to say that a truely socialist country never existed.

You're just abusing the underclasses lawl

nobody here seems to appriciate the greatness that was richard nixon.

Is that the finish flag? You silly burger people

This is why I hate wikipedia sometimes .. that statement is as misleading as the misconception the article claims

what happened:
- marshall decides in worcester v georgia that georgia law violated treaty w/ cherokees
- Georgia ignores marshall court order
- Jackson refuses to enforce it
- Georgia starts using militia to take land and get rid of cherokee resistance
- Jackson proclaims states' rights and supports georgia

so .. jackson pretty much did "defy" the Sp. Ct.

To note: Wikipedia.org is an onlie encyclopedia that is a contributed source, meaning any dumb*** can claim they are an expert and put something up.

ur wrong lawl

Name one, lawl

In two pages of discussion Van Buren hasen't come up once. Why?

Since only two people clicked the link (One's me, and the other's not you), I will quote this video to explain why GW's so boss.

-"He had a pocket full of horses, ****ed the **** out of bears, threw a knife into heaven and could kill with a stare. He made love like an eagle falling out of the sky, killed his sensei in a duel and he never said why. Washington, Washington. Twelve stories high, made of radiation. The present beware. The future beware. He's coming, he's coming, he's coming.

Like potato said, name one.

Cuba

First off, communism and socialism are not the same thing.

Second, why talk about 'socialist countries'? That makes it sound like the outdated concept of socialism as it is used in a highschool history book.

Even though most countries nowadays are capitalist, lots of countries have left wing governments. And I don't even mean extreme examples, like Cuba. That's simply a left wing dictatorship more than anything else. Basically any left wing party has socialist ideals, and most countries have socialist governments from time to time.

You speak about socialism in the historical perspective, as some kind of alternative to capitalism. But in the modern day, socialism is just a moderate form of capitalism, and socialist governments generally try to distribute wealth more evenly.

So socialism is all over Europe for example, and actually all over the world. You can basically name any country that has a socialist government right now.

Like ORJ_JoS said, communism and socialism are not the same.

But still, ORJ_JoS, there is no truely socialist government.

[QUOTE=IRG SithLord]But still, ORJ_JoS, there is no truely socialist government.[/QUOTE]

I disagree. What do you mean with 'truly'?

For example, in the Netherlands, things are looking like we are going to have a socialist government next year, because the socialists are likely to win the elections right now.

The basic tenant of socialism is first to abolish all private property.
If the Netherlands will allow people to own their homes, they simply cannot be socialist. That would be like someone who doesn't believe in Jesus saying that they are a Christian. It just doesn't work that way.




Or not. In the modern day, governments that have a mixed economy (such as the UK) practice "interventionism". It's also called a mixed economy for a reason. A European country that taxes you heavily to pay for lousy health care simply is not socialist.

Even in business classes, the first things you learn are the differences between Socialism and Capitalism, why pure Socialism doesn't work, and why pure Capitalism exploits the poor and old. By your definition, any government that tries to help the poor, old, and sick are socialists.

I was always under the assumption that capitalism is purely market based and that communism was completely based on equal sharing of resources regardless of contribution and that socialism was between them. Making all countries soclialist. On some sort of scale where 0 is communism and 10 is captalism european countries would be around a 6 or a 7, the US would be a 9, certain asian countries a 4 and so on and so forth. I probably have this completely wrong.