Us putting an embargo on them is our failure?
And I love how you say his shortcomings out shined him and then go onto say that the things he did kept his successor from being shit

His ideas were achieved by his successor. JFK was a thinker LBJ was a doer.

I want world peace and stuff, but i'd be a shit president. road to hell is paved with good intentions and all that. In typical ideologue fashion you are equating the person he was to his performance as POTUS. They aren't the same thing, and the person he was has been whitewashed because of his charisma as a speaker and assassination.

Dude. Kennedy is one of the best presidents we've ever had. He pressured NASA to get to the moon, deescalated the Cuban missile crisis, nuclear test ban treaty, and completely turned around the American economy. Just because me mucked up the bay of pigs doesn't mean jack

mucked up bay of pigs and orderedd the assassination that basicly kicked the vietnam war into full involvement when it was about to be resolved peacfuly

ya but he died so how good could he really be

Bay of pigs failed.
Pissed off Kruschev over berlin
alienated allies in geneva convention
etc etc.

Like I said, people loved him, but his failings were far more prevalent than his accomplishments. LBJ only managed to stay off 10 worst presidents for succeeding with a bunch of JFK's programs after his death. JFK is more remembered for his assassination than any major achievements. NASA's the only one anyone remembers. You should do a little more research on the cuban missle crisis if you think JFK saved the day there. Remember the 50 year embargo?

Us putting an embargo on them is our failure?
And I love how you say his shortcomings out shined him and then go onto say that the things he did kept his successor from being shit

His ideas were achieved by his successor. JFK was a thinker LBJ was a doer.

I want world peace and stuff, but i'd be a shit president. road to hell is paved with good intentions and all that. In typical ideologue fashion you are equating the person he was to his performance as POTUS. They aren't the same thing, and the person he was has been whitewashed because of his charisma as a speaker and assassination.

How is he a prick? Just because he curses and is upset?

He is incredibly egotistical, saying things like he doesn't even feel like other film makers offer competition (box office bro), has repeatedly bashed movies above and beyond simple dislike because he doesn't like the actor, or director, or writer. He has slapped, spat on, and otherwise assaulted reporters on red carpet moments(1997 oscars, sundance festival etc.). He has also publicly derided cast and crew members of his own films for things that he doesn't agree with.

Like I said, i like his movies. I do not at all care that he is vulgar and crude when he talks, but he is a prick in how he conducts himself and his out of the way disrespect for other people in the industry.

Remember how he thought he was tough shit because of the movies he makes so he attacked some guy who was filming him? Granted, filming celebrities is obnoxious and all around shitty, but I wouldn't try to fight anyone if I were Tarantino. He's quite possibly the least physically threatening biological entity in existence.

As a person, he seems like an arrogant, loud-mouthed prick.

But I'll be damned if he doesn't make some fun movies.

that's because you really don't listen to what he says, just the manner how he says it.

Hitler was in the military
Best leader around

if they ask for our help we should help them, after all they are ALLIES

Our allies in the middle east are only allies because we are economically dependent on their oil, for now.

It's usually an economic decision rather than some kind of loyalty to allies. The US would drop any and all of its allies if there was an economic benefit.

"How much will leaving this conflict alone cost our economy?"
Vs
"How much will our involvement cost, and how much effect will it have resolving the conflict sooner/more in our interests."

Yeah, but they're not the ones clamoring for another war. I just hope if we DO end up retardedly returning to the middle east we annex them or something, we really should just leave the place alone, but if we're going to keep returning every time we get a warhawk president, we might as well make it official.

Didn't Cuckie Panders say he was gonna wipe out ISIS?

Maybe you're just not American so you don't really know, but almost all of our presidents have served in the military.

Washington, Roosevelt, Raegan, Eisenhower, Lincoln, Jackson, Kennedy, Bush, Johnson, and Nixon, most of the most well known presidents all served the U.S military, and while not everyone sees eye to eye on whether they were 'good' presidents or not, they're the most noted

Many of them were in a militia, as in an army made by the people, for the people.

I'm American.
www.classroomhelp.com/lessons/Presidents/Presidents_Military_Service.html

Presidents who served in state militias during the early years hardly count. Basically that was a volunteer service that patrolled incursions along the frontier. Not conscripted duty. Being a former serviceman doesn't = good president is all I'm saying.

I believe he is talking about the current candidates, not past presidents.

I made the same assumption after reading the first line.

Possibly, but he gave his examples of past presidents too. It'd be kind of dumb to only want to refer to the present, when you bring up the past to make it sound better

As he said it:

"On top of that, former service members don't exactly have a stellar record as presidents:

LBJ
Jimmy Carter
Ulysses Grant, for example."

I think what he was getting at was not having a military background should not be a primary reason to disquality a candidate, just the same as a candidate having a military background should not be a primary reason to vote for them.

depend on who you speak to, Jackson goes both ways

Eisenhower was pretty good.

George Washington, John F. Kennedy and Abraham Lincoln were all in the military

Lincoln suspended Habeas corpus during the civil war.

You can add JFK to the list above. People loved him but as far as his merits as president go he's middle of the road at best.
Lincoln was unconscripted volunteer noncombatant in a war against indians, but fair enough.
George washington, really? That's just obvious.

Dude. Kennedy is one of the best presidents we've ever had. He pressured NASA to get to the moon, deescalated the Cuban missile crisis, nuclear test ban treaty, and completely turned around the American economy. Just because me mucked up the bay of pigs doesn't mean jack

mucked up bay of pigs and orderedd the assassination that basicly kicked the vietnam war into full involvement when it was about to be resolved peacfuly

ya but he died so how good could he really be

Bay of pigs failed.
Pissed off Kruschev over berlin
alienated allies in geneva convention
etc etc.

Like I said, people loved him, but his failings were far more prevalent than his accomplishments. LBJ only managed to stay off 10 worst presidents for succeeding with a bunch of JFK's programs after his death. JFK is more remembered for his assassination than any major achievements. NASA's the only one anyone remembers. You should do a little more research on the cuban missle crisis if you think JFK saved the day there. Remember the 50 year embargo?

Us putting an embargo on them is our failure?
And I love how you say his shortcomings out shined him and then go onto say that the things he did kept his successor from being shit

His ideas were achieved by his successor. JFK was a thinker LBJ was a doer.

I want world peace and stuff, but i'd be a shit president. road to hell is paved with good intentions and all that. In typical ideologue fashion you are equating the person he was to his performance as POTUS. They aren't the same thing, and the person he was has been whitewashed because of his charisma as a speaker and assassination.

I picked the one from the content. Just sayin.

Is this from Soul Reaver?

Thnks to post like these.

you forgot the two commas

Pretty sure that's irony.

Dang man, you were downvoted so far in to hell I thought you'd never crawl out.

Oh, a few hundred pinkies never hurt.

(For the record though I upvoted you)
(Don't tell anyone I want to live)

I'm pretty sure that's a jab...

????

Except that at no point in the bible are life liberty and the pursuit of happiness mentioned. These ideas come from John Lockes writing. I've never understood this conservative argument. The US Constitution has absolutely nothing to do with Christianity.

Maybe you didn't know this, but the gospels, Corinthians, Galatians, and Romans- books of the bible- are all letters (epistles) to members of the faith from Paul the apostle. In his continuation of the teachings of Christ during the first century AD. During this time there was mass persecution of Christians in the known world. The Pauline Epistles address the fact that liberty through Christianity superseded the laws of man. Those of the faith needed to rise up from their persecution and be freed from tyranny and oppression, because that was the will of god.

Now I am paraphrasing a lot of this, but the similarities and terminology between biblical meaning of liberty and that set forth in the declaration of independance, the constitution and reinforced in the bill of rights are undeniable. Not to mention it is a well documented fact that all the founding fathers were leaders in churches and the Christian faith. They set the bill of rights as restrictions on government to protect individual liberty, as defined biblically. There are numerous clauses of "rights endowed by our maker" in the early foundation of US law.

Liberty: The opposite of servitude or bondage, hence, applicable to captives or slaves set free from oppression (thus deror, Leviticus 25:10; Isaiah 61:1, etc.). Morally, the power which enslaves is sin (John 8:34), and liberty consists, not simply in external freedom, or in possession of the formal power of choice, but in deliverance from the darkening of the mind, the tyranny of sinful lusts and the enthrallment of the will, induced by a morally corrupt state.
www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/liberty/
John Locke was one of the first to write about it, not the man who defined Liberty.

Liberty must at all hazards be supported. We have a right to it, derived from our Maker. But if we had not, our fathers have earned and bought it for us, at the expense of their ease, their estates, their pleasure, and their blood. – John Adams, 1765

In Europe, charters of liberty have been granted by power. America has set the example . . . of charters of power granted by liberty. This revolution in the practice of the world, may, with an honest praise, be pronounced the most triumphant epoch of its history, and the most consoling presage of its happiness. – James Madison, Essays for the National Gazette, 1792