Conquer Club

JJM wrote:

Frigidus wrote:

JJM wrote:I can bet that Bush will be remembered much better than the way people think about him right now.

I'm sure Hoover felt the same way.

Hoover did not have much experience. The Presidency was his first elected office. Bush may not have done a good job at handling the economy but he did a lot for world peace.

I think he meant whirled peas.

neanderpaul14 wrote:

JJM wrote:

Frigidus wrote:

JJM wrote:I can bet that Bush will be remembered much better than the way people think about him right now.

I'm sure Hoover felt the same way.

Hoover did not have much experience. The Presidency was his first elected office. Bush may not have done a good job at handling the economy but he did a lot for world peace.

I think he meant whirled peas.

JJM wrote:Bush may not have done a good job at handling the economy but he did a lot for world peace.

Is that really what they're teaching in North Dakota?!

comic boy wrote:

JJM wrote:

Frigidus wrote:

JJM wrote:I can bet that Bush will be remembered much better than the way people think about him right now.

I'm sure Hoover felt the same way.

Hoover did not have much experience. The Presidency was his first elected office. Bush may not have done a good job at handling the economy but he did a lot for world peace.

Where do you get this garbage from
What on earth did Bush do for World peace except make it more unlikely

He got rid of saddam huessian.

InkL0sed wrote:

JJM wrote:

InkL0sed wrote:So what? That counts as experience in my book, especially since a lot of people thought he was more influential than both Harding and Coolidge as Commerce Secretary.

That doesen't count for much. Although Hoover did try to do good as President and he did have some good accomplishments but not all that great at handling the economy.

You're insane. 10 years as the most influential man in two administrations doesn't count for much?

Actually he was secretary of Commerce for a bit less than 7 and a half years. I would not go as far as saying he was more influential than Calvin Coolidge. Besides where was his leadership experience. Besides his "national traffic conferences" what other major things did he do as secretary of Commerce?

Oh, excuse me. Just seven years. I'm sorry, that seems to have completely invalidated my point.

Wikipedia practically has an entire essay on what he did as Secretary of Commerce.

Commerce was considered a minor Cabinet post, with limited and somewhat vaguely defined responsibilities.

But Hoover aimed to change that, envisioning the Commerce Department as the hub of the nation's growth and stability. He demanded from Harding, and received, authority to help coordinate economic affairs throughout the government. He created a great many sub-departments and committees, overseeing and regulating everything from manufacturing statistics, the census, and radio to air travel. In some instances, he "seized" control of responsibilities from other Cabinet departments when he deemed that they were not carrying out their responsibilities well enough. Hoover became one of the most visible men in the country, often overshadowing Presidents Harding and Calvin Coolidge. Washington wags were soon referring to Hoover as "the Secretary of Commerce... and Under-Secretary of Everything Else!"

As secretary and later as President, Hoover revolutionized the relations between business and government. Rejecting the adversarial stance of Roosevelt, Taft, and Wilson, he sought to make the Commerce Department a powerful service organization, empowered to forge cooperative voluntary partnerships between government and business. This philosophy is often called "associationalism."

InkL0sed wrote:Oh, excuse me. Just seven years. I'm sorry, that seems to have completely invalidated my point.

Wikipedia practically has an entire essay on what he did as Secretary of Commerce.

Commerce was considered a minor Cabinet post, with limited and somewhat vaguely defined responsibilities.

But Hoover aimed to change that, envisioning the Commerce Department as the hub of the nation's growth and stability. He demanded from Harding, and received, authority to help coordinate economic affairs throughout the government. He created a great many sub-departments and committees, overseeing and regulating everything from manufacturing statistics, the census, and radio to air travel. In some instances, he "seized" control of responsibilities from other Cabinet departments when he deemed that they were not carrying out their responsibilities well enough. Hoover became one of the most visible men in the country, often overshadowing Presidents Harding and Calvin Coolidge. Washington wags were soon referring to Hoover as "the Secretary of Commerce... and Under-Secretary of Everything Else!"

As secretary and later as President, Hoover revolutionized the relations between business and government. Rejecting the adversarial stance of Roosevelt, Taft, and Wilson, he sought to make the Commerce Department a powerful service organization, empowered to forge cooperative voluntary partnerships between government and business. This philosophy is often called "associationalism."

So he did have other accomplishments as Secretary of Commerce but Calvin Coolidge was quiet influential and where was his leadership experience.

JJM wrote:

comic boy wrote:

JJM wrote:

Frigidus wrote:

JJM wrote:I can bet that Bush will be remembered much better than the way people think about him right now.

I'm sure Hoover felt the same way.

Hoover did not have much experience. The Presidency was his first elected office. Bush may not have done a good job at handling the economy but he did a lot for world peace.

Where do you get this garbage from
What on earth did Bush do for World peace except make it more unlikely

He got rid of saddam huessian.

Seriously, how did that help world peace?

Snorri1234 wrote:Seriously, how did that help world peace?

saddam huesian was a harsh dictator. I admire Bush for freeing Iraq from such a harsh dictator.

JJM wrote:

JJM wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

THE ARMY wrote:George W. Bush is up there (I'm NOT joking)

You are clearly a dangerous lunatic.

Bush did absolutely wonderful. He freed five million people from terrorism. He had to face some of the same problems as Lincoln. Both had to deal with two wars. Bush had to deal with the war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan. Lincoln had to deal with the Civil War and the Dakota Indian War (If you are not familiar with the Dakota Indian War it was a war fought against the Sioux Indian tribe which used to be know as the Dakota Indian tribe.) And both had to deal with a troubled economy. (Which often is the result of war.) Although the Civil war was much more important than the two wars going on right now the economy was much worse than it is right now. It was worse than the Great Depression. The Civil war was fought mostly in the South but the Dakota Indian war was fought in the North in the state of Minnesota but little did the people complain about the economy. I think people need to quit being so selfish. They are too concerned about money. There where millions of people being terrorized and beaten by a very harsh dictator but people where more concerned about their money.

And by the way Bush isn't the one to blame for all our debt ethier. It is fact that every president since F.D.R. not counting F.D.R. himself has added to the national debt.

Just in case you over looked this I am posting it again.

JJM wrote:

comic boy wrote:

JJM wrote:

Frigidus wrote:

JJM wrote:I can bet that Bush will be remembered much better than the way people think about him right now.

I'm sure Hoover felt the same way.

Hoover did not have much experience. The Presidency was his first elected office. Bush may not have done a good job at handling the economy but he did a lot for world peace.

Where do you get this garbage from
What on earth did Bush do for World peace except make it more unlikely

He got rid of saddam huessian.

I agree Saddam was a ruthless dictator, however during his rein Iraq was not in an all out civil war. Which it now is and will remain so for many years to come.

JJM wrote:

InkL0sed wrote:Oh, excuse me. Just seven years. I'm sorry, that seems to have completely invalidated my point.

Wikipedia practically has an entire essay on what he did as Secretary of Commerce.

Commerce was considered a minor Cabinet post, with limited and somewhat vaguely defined responsibilities.

But Hoover aimed to change that, envisioning the Commerce Department as the hub of the nation's growth and stability. He demanded from Harding, and received, authority to help coordinate economic affairs throughout the government. He created a great many sub-departments and committees, overseeing and regulating everything from manufacturing statistics, the census, and radio to air travel. In some instances, he "seized" control of responsibilities from other Cabinet departments when he deemed that they were not carrying out their responsibilities well enough. Hoover became one of the most visible men in the country, often overshadowing Presidents Harding and Calvin Coolidge. Washington wags were soon referring to Hoover as "the Secretary of Commerce... and Under-Secretary of Everything Else!"

As secretary and later as President, Hoover revolutionized the relations between business and government. Rejecting the adversarial stance of Roosevelt, Taft, and Wilson, he sought to make the Commerce Department a powerful service organization, empowered to forge cooperative voluntary partnerships between government and business. This philosophy is often called "associationalism."

So he did have other accomplishments as Secretary of Commerce but Calvin Coolidge was quiet influential and where was his leadership experience.

Being one of the most influential men in the country isn't leadership experience? How do you define leadership experience, then?

In any case, I don't really see what point you're making. All I'm doing is pointing out that you're wrong. Seven years as even a minor member of the Cabinet is nothing to dismiss out of hand, and he was no minor member of the Cabinet. I don't really know how influential Coolidge was (although I seem to remember him basically doing nothing as President), but the point is that he was just a step below President for almost a decade. It's absurd to just dismiss that.

Since Lincoln was the best president, and with today's modern marvels in medical science, couldn't we get some DNA and make an all new Lincoln for the 21st century?

InkL0sed wrote:

JJM wrote:

InkL0sed wrote:Oh, excuse me. Just seven years. I'm sorry, that seems to have completely invalidated my point.

Wikipedia practically has an entire essay on what he did as Secretary of Commerce.

Commerce was considered a minor Cabinet post, with limited and somewhat vaguely defined responsibilities.

But Hoover aimed to change that, envisioning the Commerce Department as the hub of the nation's growth and stability. He demanded from Harding, and received, authority to help coordinate economic affairs throughout the government. He created a great many sub-departments and committees, overseeing and regulating everything from manufacturing statistics, the census, and radio to air travel. In some instances, he "seized" control of responsibilities from other Cabinet departments when he deemed that they were not carrying out their responsibilities well enough. Hoover became one of the most visible men in the country, often overshadowing Presidents Harding and Calvin Coolidge. Washington wags were soon referring to Hoover as "the Secretary of Commerce... and Under-Secretary of Everything Else!"

As secretary and later as President, Hoover revolutionized the relations between business and government. Rejecting the adversarial stance of Roosevelt, Taft, and Wilson, he sought to make the Commerce Department a powerful service organization, empowered to forge cooperative voluntary partnerships between government and business. This philosophy is often called "associationalism."

So he did have other accomplishments as Secretary of Commerce but Calvin Coolidge was quiet influential and where was his leadership experience.

Being one of the most influential men in the country isn't leadership experience? How do you define leadership experience, then?

In any case, I don't really see what point you're making. All I'm doing is pointing out that you're wrong. Seven years as even a minor member of the Cabinet is nothing to dismiss out of hand, and he was no minor member of the Cabinet. I don't really know how influential Coolidge was (although I seem to remember him basically doing nothing as President), but the point is that he was just a step below President for almost a decade. It's absurd to just dismiss that.

Hoover had some experience but the Presidency was his first elected office. Hoover served under Harding and Coolidge so I can't say that I would call that leadership experience. Leader ship experience for would be for example: Obama was president of harvard law school (which to me dosen't mean much), Bush (the 2nd) and Clinton were governors and Bush (the 1st) was Vice president. Also when you said Calvin Coolidge did nothing that is what made him great. Coolidge's economic policy was to let the government interfere with the economy as little as possible and let everyone make there own money and it worked. Under Coolidge's administration the countries economic growth rate was record high (7% a year). He paid off over 5 trillion dollars of debt in 6 years.

notyou2 wrote:JimmyJamJam for President in 2012............

By then Jimmy Carter will be 89 years old if he is still around. People thought that John McCain was too old at 72 or 73.

JJM wrote:

notyou2 wrote:JimmyJamJam for President in 2012............

By then Jimmy Carter will be 89 years old if he is still around. People thought that John McCain was too old at 72 or 73.

Why don't we have Bush senior run against him lol.

JJM wrote:

InkL0sed wrote:

JJM wrote:

InkL0sed wrote:Oh, excuse me. Just seven years. I'm sorry, that seems to have completely invalidated my point.

Wikipedia practically has an entire essay on what he did as Secretary of Commerce.

Commerce was considered a minor Cabinet post, with limited and somewhat vaguely defined responsibilities.

But Hoover aimed to change that, envisioning the Commerce Department as the hub of the nation's growth and stability. He demanded from Harding, and received, authority to help coordinate economic affairs throughout the government. He created a great many sub-departments and committees, overseeing and regulating everything from manufacturing statistics, the census, and radio to air travel. In some instances, he "seized" control of responsibilities from other Cabinet departments when he deemed that they were not carrying out their responsibilities well enough. Hoover became one of the most visible men in the country, often overshadowing Presidents Harding and Calvin Coolidge. Washington wags were soon referring to Hoover as "the Secretary of Commerce... and Under-Secretary of Everything Else!"

As secretary and later as President, Hoover revolutionized the relations between business and government. Rejecting the adversarial stance of Roosevelt, Taft, and Wilson, he sought to make the Commerce Department a powerful service organization, empowered to forge cooperative voluntary partnerships between government and business. This philosophy is often called "associationalism."

So he did have other accomplishments as Secretary of Commerce but Calvin Coolidge was quiet influential and where was his leadership experience.

Being one of the most influential men in the country isn't leadership experience? How do you define leadership experience, then?

In any case, I don't really see what point you're making. All I'm doing is pointing out that you're wrong. Seven years as even a minor member of the Cabinet is nothing to dismiss out of hand, and he was no minor member of the Cabinet. I don't really know how influential Coolidge was (although I seem to remember him basically doing nothing as President), but the point is that he was just a step below President for almost a decade. It's absurd to just dismiss that.

Hoover had some experience but the Presidency was his first elected office. Hoover served under Harding and Coolidge so I can't say that I would call that leadership experience. Leader ship experience for would be for example: Obama was president of harvard law school (which to me dosen't mean much), Bush (the 2nd) and Clinton were governors and Bush (the 1st) was Vice president. Also when you said Calvin Coolidge did nothing that is what made him great. Coolidge's economic policy was to let the government interfere with the economy as little as possible and let everyone make there own money and it worked. Under Coolidge's administration the countries economic growth rate was record high (7% a year). He paid off over 5 trillion dollars of debt in 6 years.

Your logic is so convoluted it's not even funny.

1) By your logic, Vice President wouldn't be "leadership experience" either, since the Vice President serves under the President, as you put it. In fact, the Vice President has even less power than any Cabinet member (since he pretty has none), so it makes even less sense.

2) Cabinet members are leaders. Period. That they "serve under" the President doesn't mean shit. So do all the generals in the military; does that mean they aren't leaders either? The fact of the matter is that any Cabinet member has tremendous power and influence (ie, they lead), at least as much and almost always more than any Congressman, and Hoover wasn't just any Cabinet member. Hoover was the most important and powerful (ie, he led other people a lot, including the Presidents he "served under") Cabinet member in two administrations. None of this is really up for debate, as it's fact. Unless of course you redefine "leadership experience" to mean either president, vice president, or governor.

Not to mention that Hoover was the head of a large corporation before he entered politics, so if Obama's being president of the Harvard Law Review counts as at least some leadership experience, then being CEO of a corporation definitely counts for something.

3) Stop it with the elected office nonsense. What does it matter whether he was elected or not before he became President? That has no bearing on his experience. That just means he wasn't popular enough for it.

Re Coolidge: yeah, and the Great Depression happening right after he left office had nothing to do with his economic policies, of course. Seems he let his Commerce Secretary lead too much (see what I did there)?

JJM wrote:

JJM wrote:

notyou2 wrote:JimmyJamJam for President in 2012............

By then Jimmy Carter will be 89 years old if he is still around. People thought that John McCain was too old at 72 or 73.

Why don't we have Bush senior run against him lol.

Anybody else hear that whoosh sound?

InkL0sed wrote:Your logic is so convoluted it's not even funny.

1) By your logic, Vice President wouldn't be "leadership experience" either, since the Vice President serves under the President, as you put it. In fact, the Vice President has even less power than any Cabinet member (since he pretty has none), so it makes even less sense.

2) Cabinet members are leaders. Period. That they "serve under" the President doesn't mean shit. So do all the generals in the military; does that mean they aren't leaders either? The fact of the matter is that any Cabinet member has tremendous power and influence (ie, they lead), at least as much and almost always more than any Congressman, and Hoover wasn't just any Cabinet member. Hoover was the most important and powerful (is, he led other people a lot, including the Presidents he "served under") Cabinet member in two administrations. None of this is really up for debate, as it's fact. Unless of course you redefine "leadership experience" to mean either president, vice president, or governor.

Not to mention that Hoover was the head of a large corporation before he entered politics, so if Obama's being president of the Harvard Law Review counts as at least some leadership experience, then being CEO of a corporation definitely counts for something.

3) Stop it with the elected office nonsense. What does it matter whether he was elected or not before he became President? That has no bearing on his experience. That just means he wasn't popular enough for it.

Re Coolidge: yeah, and the Great Depression happening right after he left office had nothing to do with his economic policies, of course. Seems he let his Commerce Secretary lead too much (see what I did there)?

The Vice President is head of the Senate and is one of the presidents most influential advisers. Hoover did have some experience but not enough to prepare him for the presidency. The Great Depression did come very shortly after Coolidge left office but when he was in office our economic growth rate was record high so you can't say that he couldn't handle the economy. He paid off over 5 trillion dollars of debt in 6 years. It sure didn't take long for Hoover to bring us from a record high economic growth rate to a depression so he must not have known how to handle the economy very well.

InkL0sed wrote:
Your logic is so convoluted it's not even funny.

1) By your logic, Vice President wouldn't be "leadership experience" either, since the Vice President serves under the President, as you put it. In fact, the Vice President has even less power than any Cabinet member (since he pretty has none), so it makes even less sense.

2) Cabinet members are leaders. Period. That they "serve under" the President doesn't mean shit. So do all the generals in the military; does that mean they aren't leaders either? The fact of the matter is that any Cabinet member has tremendous power and influence (ie, they lead), at least as much and almost always more than any Congressman, and Hoover wasn't just any Cabinet member. Hoover was the most important and powerful (is, he led other people a lot, including the Presidents he "served under") Cabinet member in two administrations. None of this is really up for debate, as it's fact. Unless of course you redefine "leadership experience" to mean either president, vice president, or governor.

Not to mention that Hoover was the head of a large corporation before he entered politics, so if Obama's being president of the Harvard Law Review counts as at least some leadership experience, then being CEO of a corporation definitely counts for something.

3) Stop it with the elected office nonsense. What does it matter whether he was elected or not before he became President? That has no bearing on his experience. That just means he wasn't popular enough for it.

Re Coolidge: yeah, and the Great Depression happening right after he left office had nothing to do with his economic policies, of course. Seems he let his Commerce Secretary lead too much (see what I did there)?

The Vice President casts the tie-breaking vote in the Senate and when the president is unable to do his job for a short time the Vice President takes over.( example: Dick Cheney took over for Bush for a few hours when Bush had a colonoscopy.)

JJM wrote:

comic boy wrote:

JJM wrote:

Frigidus wrote:

JJM wrote:I can bet that Bush will be remembered much better than the way people think about him right now.

I'm sure Hoover felt the same way.

Hoover did not have much experience. The Presidency was his first elected office. Bush may not have done a good job at handling the economy but he did a lot for world peace.

Where do you get this garbage from
What on earth did Bush do for World peace except make it more unlikely

He got rid of saddam huessian.

Saddam was a murderous despot, though no different to many in the past that the US and the West have supported, but he WAS NOT threatening World Peace, WAS NOT sponsoring terrorism and DID NOT have weapons of mass destruction. As you seem to know less than nothing about your last president I dont think we can take you as any sort of authority on those that went before.

JJM wrote:

JJM wrote:

notyou2 wrote:JimmyJamJam for President in 2012............

By then Jimmy Carter will be 89 years old if he is still around. People thought that John McCain was too old at 72 or 73.

Why don't we have Bush senior run against him lol.

Not so much run, more power-stroll.

InkL0sed wrote:

JJM wrote:

JJM wrote:

notyou2 wrote:JimmyJamJam for President in 2012............

By then Jimmy Carter will be 89 years old if he is still around. People thought that John McCain was too old at 72 or 73.

Why don't we have Bush senior run against him lol.

Anybody else hear that whoosh sound?

Loud and clear here. Louder than the sound of a jet breaking the speed of light.

comic boy wrote:Saddam was a murderous despot, though no different to many in the past that the US and the West have supported, but he WAS NOT threatening World Peace, WAS NOT sponsoring terrorism and DID NOT have weapons of mass destruction. As you seem to know less than nothing about your last president I dont think we can take you as any sort of authority on those that went before.

He didn't have weapons of mass destraction but he was a very harsh dictator.

JJM wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

THE ARMY wrote:George W. Bush is up there (I'm NOT joking)

You are clearly a dangerous lunatic.

Bush did absolutely wonderful. He freed five million people from terrorism. He had to face some of the same problems as Lincoln. Both had to deal with two wars. Bush had to deal with the war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan. Lincoln had to deal with the Civil War and the Dakota Indian War (If you are not familiar with the Dakota Indian War it was a war fought against the Sioux Indian tribe which used to be know as the Dakota Indian tribe.) And both had to deal with a troubled economy. (Which often is the result of war.) Although the Civil war was much more important than the two wars going on right now the economy was much worse than it is right now. It was worse than the Great Depression. The Civil war was fought mostly in the South but the Dakota Indian war was fought in the North in the state of Minnesota but little did the people complain about the economy. I think people need to quit being so selfish. They are too concerned about money. There where millions of people being terrorized and beaten by a very harsh dictator but people where more concerned about their money.

That is why I think that Bush was a great president.