Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-18-2011, 08:35 PM
 
20,948 posts, read 19,057,820 times
Reputation: 10270

Advertisements

Academics do not live in the real world.

That's why very few academics rise to leadership roles.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-19-2011, 01:05 AM
 
Location: Flyover Country
26,211 posts, read 19,529,215 times
Reputation: 21679
Quote:
Originally Posted by alphamale View Post
Academics do not live in the real world.

That's why very few academics rise to leadership roles.
And also the reason some of these people have risen to the ultimate leadership roles: They were given privilege and leadership roles they did not deserve, (including Presidency) based on their family ties/connections.

See: Bush, George W.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-19-2011, 03:48 AM
 
1,733 posts, read 1,822,925 times
Reputation: 1135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavaturaccioli View Post
If Europe is better off than we are (a risible assumption if you ask me) maybe it helped that we picked up the tab for their defense during the Cold War. Pretty easy to have cradle to grave nanny statism when someone else is paying your defense bills.
If the United States vanished tomorrow, the remaining NATO/EU countries would have about 40% of the military spending of the world. In fact, the UK, Germany and France together has a bigger military budget than Russia + China.

No matter how much America whines, (and it seems to be a lot) Europe isn't going to subsidize the US military industry more than it does today.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-19-2011, 03:52 AM
 
1,011 posts, read 1,017,052 times
Reputation: 467
I'm just going by the headline here - " British academics"

LOL!!!! Who gives a flying F about these deadbeat limeys anymore these days?

And their useless opinions? From a monarchy with a freaking queen and a king? You've got to be kidding me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-19-2011, 03:54 AM
 
Location: Orlando
8,276 posts, read 12,863,269 times
Reputation: 4142
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009 View Post
If jimmy carter is 18, it detracts from any "validity" the ranking may have suggested. Carter, by most estimates, was the worst president of the 20th century.

I wonder if anyone would care if we "ranked" the British Prime Ministers?

Actually, few realize how much he did do. When his biggest issue is Iran and he has an overzealous Bush and Reagan conspiring with the enemy to retain the hostages... doesn't make the job easier.... personally I think Bush and reagan committed treason in their efforts but that's me.

SOme will say we had horrible inflation and interest.... Actually it was a good indication the economy was in a recovery mode and it showed what would have been expected. Also it was Kissinger an d Nixon that developed OPEC so the Middle East could buy our weapons... and gas was the main issue in the inflation. reagan removed gas from the index... so it wasn't any better just not reported...

I would place reagan much lower in the scale along with W... Now we have it confirmed he had Alzheimer while he was in office, something I've said for years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-19-2011, 04:42 AM
 
499 posts, read 405,346 times
Reputation: 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by wellyouknow View Post
I'm just going by the headline here - " British academics"

LOL!!!! Who gives a flying F about these deadbeat limeys anymore these days?

And their useless opinions? From a monarchy with a freaking queen and a king? You've got to be kidding me.
My pedantry compels me to point out that "Limey" is a term usually used to describe the English, not the British. The Queen is merely an accessory. A arguably valuable one, but it's not like she's making any decisions about legislature.

I agree that these lists are interesting, but don't really contribute much. They also tend to be arbitrary, despite the academics' best efforts.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-19-2011, 04:49 AM
 
20,948 posts, read 19,057,820 times
Reputation: 10270
Quote:
Originally Posted by odanny View Post
And also the reason some of these people have risen to the ultimate leadership roles: They were given privilege and leadership roles they did not deserve, (including Presidency) based on their family ties/connections.

See: Bush, George W.
So you would call Bush an academic?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-19-2011, 08:09 AM
 
Location: Texas
37,949 posts, read 17,875,145 times
Reputation: 10371
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyageur View Post
Not surprisingly, historical rankings of Presidents are not solely limited to the question: How did the economy do?
yea also they should be judged on how they protected our borders and our liberties. Other than that I don't see much else they are elected to do

btw Harding stayed out of the "limiting the Free Market business". Who knew that doing so little could do so much? I mean besides the founders.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-19-2011, 08:15 AM
 
Location: Texas
37,949 posts, read 17,875,145 times
Reputation: 10371
Quote:
Originally Posted by ben86 View Post
True, I'm no expert on American history but it makes sense for Roosevelt, Lincoln and Washington to be at the top considering they had to cope with some of the toughest situations of any US president. I bet somebody like Bill Clinton is glad he had some of the easiest times possible and he never had to deal with half the stuff Obama has to face up to.
Lincoln led us into a war that cost more American lives than World War 1 and 2 combined. FDR prolonged the longest depression we have seen. They were horrible.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-19-2011, 08:23 AM
 
Location: North Cackelacky....in the hills.
19,567 posts, read 21,875,929 times
Reputation: 2519
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry View Post
Lincoln led us into a war that cost more American lives than World War 1 and 2 combined. FDR prolonged the longest depression we have seen. They were horrible.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top