| whose faces belong on mount rushmore?
Posted: 7/23/2008 11:30:57 AM | Hey... nobody's gonna change your mind or mine... but I just thought you might want to know.
Lol, and you're probably right Stranger, and it's been good talking with you this morning.
From my point of view, there's a whole part of our government that needs an overhaul and it's going to take a real bi-partisan effort to do it. WE, the American People, are looking to government to supply us with everything we feel we need (or probably want) in life, and it's going to kill us in the long run. While the candidates oftentimes will discuss what to do with "this and that" or the pieces of the puzzle, we seldom have a candidate that will look at the total picture and rather ask a question, 'but should government be involved with that in the first place?'......Hence my comment about the president controlling the stock market or not [frankly, I'd like to see more separation between the inner workings of Commerce and State (with exception that the dollar should be stable and the world market place open to our producers....which btw: Reagan's rep did well with GATT in that regard) and don't feel that the White House, regardless of who was president that day, has been rightfully directly responsible for any stock market crash]. The basic role of our government should be to keep our people safe and to let them go about their business otherwise, but not a lot more beyond that really (yes, I can agree to a pretty wide interpretation of what the word 'safe' means and it goes way beyond just military strength and into healthcare, etc)...........and I think that Reagan pretty much did that. As for welfare, I often wonder what he might have been able to accomplish on that front if he had not had his hands so full with the Cold War and the economy in his first two terms, or if instead we had been able to re-elect him for a third or third and fourth term! :-)
In any case, even if it's just for sheer impact, Reagan's impact was at such a magnitude as to justify a mountain for the man (love or hate him), and much of what he started still lives on today.....a great legacy. .....Not bad for someone who started off as a Dem. | |
|
| whose faces belong on mount rushmore?
Posted: 7/23/2008 12:39:57 PM |
it's been good talking with you this morning.
Thank you and good talking with you also, o4
As far as the issue about government supply: That's a humungous topic and I'm not sure we can do it justice here.
There are some things we must have or the whole thing will fall apart. I think our nation is very interdependant and the government has to be big, because without the government helping, nothing would work.
We need clean water, clean air, an incredibly large waste management system, a huge federal emergency response every time there's a flood, an earthquake or a hurricane; we need an interstate highways system, airlines, seaports, our communications systems, the highest level of industrial technology, a strong military, and enough tax revenues to make all that happen. | |
|
| whose faces belong on mount rushmore?
Posted: 7/23/2008 2:45:16 PM | Of the four currently displayed, it's possible - though unlikely - that Jefferson might deserve the honour. Certainly none of the others do. Among the other presidents, it is conceivable that FDR might deserve to join Jefferson on the mountain.
Of course, it is hardly possible to deny that any US president since the second world war is more deserving of a war crimes trial than any public honour (as would most of the previous presidents, for that matter, had current definitions of war crimes existed then) - although I'm sure a few knee-jerk artisans, acting from misguided patriotism, will try to deny it. | |
|
| whose faces belong on mount rushmore?
Posted: 7/23/2008 10:46:01 PM | My choices:
Bill Maher
Jon Stewart
Lenny Bruce
Naomi Klein (my hero)
All of the above have more awareness of the human condition in their little finger than most any politician has in their whole body. | |
|
| whose faces belong on mount rushmore?
Posted: 7/23/2008 11:30:15 PM | I'd have to throw my two-cents into the FDR camp. He fundamentally revolutionized the entire idea of government in the United States. He created bold never been tried economic policies, fixed the banking industry, considered the government's role to help the people, and united the nation in ways still evident today. If we were to look at Today's governemnt we can see it owes far more to FDR than any of the founding fathers (for better or worse). Even the gunpowder plot to hold a military coup is a reason to put him up there since the founding fathers wanted the people to be able to overthrow the government if it got messed up.
Although, if we wanted to create a separate memorial to today's government instead of the government of old:
TR - Gunboat diplomacy paved the way for the US acting as the world's policeman
FDR - Big government, unpopular decisions, saving the country
JFK - Shift of politics to a popularity contest, Brinksmanship
and I don't know who'd be four or five... Nixon or Clinton wouldn't be bad choices because they reshaped the nations view of government, had reputations ruined by stupid mistakes, huge foreign policy and economic focus, etc... I would like to put up whichever president injected morality/religion into politics because that is another enormous driving force today. | |
|
| whose faces belong on mount rushmore?
Posted: 7/24/2008 1:41:09 AM | Shouldn't add any.
That area is the Lakota's. As things are now they were never asked about the carving of those already there. That area, the Black Hills, is sacred land to them. It is considered the heart of the Sioux people. They have always thought of it that way. Satellite images show that they do indeed resemble a human heart. Now the Lakota require special permissions to perform their ceremonies on their own land.
But hey what do I know. Just my opinion for what it's worth. | |
|
| whose faces belong on mount rushmore?
Posted: 7/24/2008 5:31:41 AM | Hmm . . . well if it's all that sacred to them, how come they're building a big honking statue of Crazy Horse, which will be much bigger than what's on Mt. Rushmore when complete?
http://www.crazyhorse.org/ | |
|
| whose faces belong on mount rushmore?
Posted: 7/24/2008 10:58:35 AM | I don't really like the idea of idolizing any of those guys. Hero worship is a bad thing. It makes us overlook flaws in people and hold them up as models of perfection...; which they surely are/were not; and merely having "unassailable" icons like that is dogma and propaganda: nothing but big lies.
I'm not going to tear into them here, because anyone can look up and see the terrible things that happened under the government administrations (and sometimes the bloody hands) of these people, but I think we need to see our leaders more for what they are... especially now. I think we need to think critically and demand a higher level of accountability from our leaders...not worship them on the face of some mountain. | |
|
| whose faces belong on mount rushmore?
Posted: 7/24/2008 11:27:39 AM | Get rid of Roosevelt and Lincoln.
I'd add in John Tyler. He was the only president not to belong to a p0litical party (he was kicked out of the Whigs for not supporting certain Whig policies). He opposed the existence of a national bank. He was able to resolve a rebellion in Rhode Island through diplomacy. He was a strong supporter of the Separation of Church and State. Tyler was opposed to the Compromise of 1850 and wanted California to be admitted to the Union as a free state (i.e. no slavery).
My second addition would be Grant. His policies reduced the debt (and would have eventually paid off the debt), reduced taxes, reduced interest rates, changed the US trade deficit to a trade surplus, and reduced inflation. He was a staunch defender of civil rights for blacks and took a strong stance against the KKK. | |
|
| |
| whose faces belong on mount rushmore?
Posted: 7/24/2008 9:46:16 PM | John, Paul, George and Ringo!
Oooookayyyy.. so maybe you didn't like that because they're not US citizens.. so how about DONALD, HUEY, DEWEY AND LOUIE?
nAH AH AH...
Hey... how about Groucho, Zeppo, Harpo and Chico?
OR Frank, Dino, Sammy and Peter? (sorry Joey!)
or Dubyah, Cheney, Rummy and Powell?
ooooo ! oooo!!!! wait... I got it now!!!
Reagan, Bush I, Bush II and QUAYLE!!!
eeeeEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEYOWWWWW!!!! | |
|
| whose faces belong on mount rushmore?
Posted: 7/25/2008 6:09:03 AM | IMO I agree with Crash they should have left the mountain alone.I was recently there
and although Rushmore is impressive so are the Cathedral spires the place where
they originally wanted to put the faces but Borglum said "NO it's perfect the way it is"
One good thing to come out of Mt rushmore was the Crazy horse site it will be just wow
if it ever gets completed. | |
|
| |
| |
| |
| |
| whose faces belong on mount rushmore?
Posted: 7/25/2008 7:14:50 PM |
why not all the tonite show hosts Parr ,Carson Leno ,and, O brien
I could go for that... none of them screwed their enlisted recruits out of land grants after the French-Indian war, had 17 children by one of their slaves while professing to be against slavery, had their army do a slash and burn through the south to make sure they won a war year election or told the world that white men were superior to everyone else...
THAT'S THE TICKET!!!! | |
|
| whose faces belong on mount rushmore?
Posted: 7/25/2008 7:18:36 PM | I have read and studied Reagan for over 25 years now. I read "posts" from this Stranger person, and he really doesn't like "conservatives" at all, especially Reagan from what I have read on this thread. I believe Reagan made mistakes as all President's do, but if you look at the true accomplishments of what happened during Reagan's tenure, then you can make the argument that he "belongs" on Mount Rushmore as does FDR.
Reagan wouldn't not have passed anything in the House of Representative if it weren't for the conservative Democrats that backed his programs. You forgot to mention that Stranger. Those Democrats could have "killed" any Reagan measure if they truly believe what he was doing was wrong, especially on the economic side. Reagan changed history and the liberals on here can't stomach that. | |
|
| whose faces belong on mount rushmore?
Posted: 7/25/2008 8:11:27 PM | Even though they aren't "presidential" I would suggest Rosenberg, Fuchs, Greenglass and any one of the other players.
I can't even imagine how f*cked up things would be if the US had managed to be the only nuclear armed superpower for all the years that followed and these people helped to assure some semblence of balance. | |
|
| whose faces belong on mount rushmore?
Posted: 7/25/2008 8:38:51 PM | | For the life of me, I can't imagine why we would want to carve anyones face on Mount Rushmore. Firstly our country is hugely in debt, how would we pay for this? Borrow more money from China? Secondly, why carve up any further that beautiful mountain and putting anything else man made up there. Surely nothing man can make is equal to the majesty of what God has created. | |
|
| whose faces belong on mount rushmore?
Posted: 7/25/2008 8:47:18 PM | | Yikes, mungojoe! You want to honor and vindicate traitors? I think that is a subject for a whole other thread entirely. Frankly, I'm a bit taken aback. I suggest you write a book on the subject and ride the controversy train to success with it. | |
|
| |
| whose faces belong on mount rushmore?
Posted: 7/26/2008 12:40:27 AM |
Yikes, mungojoe! You want to honor and vindicate traitors?
Just to explain the rationale for the choice a bit better:
After ww2 both the Soviets and the US would have been conventional military superpowers regardless of whether they had nukes or not (whether that would have been a more dangerous situation or not is another argument).
Given that, it is far more likely (possibly even definite) that we would have had a major east-west war with significant use of nukes if only one side, regardless of which it was, had been armed with them and it would have been started by the side with the nukes.
Aside from neither side having them, the only realistic way to have avoided that was for both to have them. If not for Soviet spies connected to the US nuclear program, that balance may not have been achieved in sufficient measure to prevent the almost certain use that would follow useful possession by one side only.
I picked them because they are among the most well known and were involved at a critical juncture in achieving that balance.
Ironically, their disloyalty to a nation can be considered to have been a supreme act of loyalty to humanity, however unintentional that may have been.
Frankly, I'm a bit taken aback.
No you're not, not really anyway.  | |
|
| whose faces belong on mount rushmore?
Posted: 7/26/2008 7:06:21 AM |
I have read and studied Reagan for over 25 years now. I read "posts" from this Stranger person, and he really doesn't like "conservatives" at all, especially Reagan from what I have read on this thread.
I'm going to proclaim (not admit.. because I'm very proud of not liking Reagan, or most conservative politicians) that as being true. We'll probably always have that as the focal point of our forum association, so Hello Historian.  My nick is strangerinthehouse 
I believe Reagan made mistakes as all President's do, but if you look at the true accomplishments of what happened during Reagan's tenure, then you can make the argument that he "belongs" on Mount Rushmore as does FDR.
I also made another argument that we just shouldn't worship people like that, pretending that they're wonderful and acting as we would as if they were perfect.
but also consider:
FDR herded the Japanese-Americans into slave labor camps and allowed other citizens to steal all their land and private property they couldn't take with them while they were in those camps. He also allowed the Japanese to bomb Pearl Harbor.
Reagan exported weapons of mass destruction to Iraq and satellite technology to China, which they used in their ICBM program to develop nuclear weapons which can now reach the US.
Why?
To help the satellite technology and defense industries, sacrificing our national security for the well-being of those industries.
So, you can see that on this issue, I'm hardly partisan.
Reagan also was president of the screen actors guild and gave away many rights of those in his collective bargaining organization to collect residuals for reruns of their work.
He also had the film "Salt of the Earth" (a film about organized labor striking the New Mexico copper mines [which by the way, is now free on the web]) blacklisted as being a film which was "Unamerican".
Some "labor leader" he was. Some defender of "freedom of speech" he was...
I believe the governed in modern societies (not just the US, but anywhere else as well) have to bring those who govern them under closer scrutiny and accountability regarding decisions that are made on issues that are supposedly made "for their own well-being", when actually they sacrifice the goals of the nation for their own private wealth.
I'm very much against rich and powerful people leading everyone around by the nose without having to explain why.
That's why I'm not a conservative. I think the political power in society should be more in the hands of common people...albeit enlightened and educated common people, who aren't so stupid they can be manipulated by jingoisms and sloganeering like "TAX CUT" and "COMMUNIST!" and other assorted crap.
Conservatives can criticize mob madness and leftitst sloganeering and leaders such as Robespierre as a demagogue, and they'd be correct, but don't pretend conservatives are guiltless of this themselves.
Consider that in the 20th century, 120 million people were killed in wars between nations. 200 million were killed by their own governments.
I think Mt. Rushmore is a link with prehistory, when citizens thought their leaders controlled weather, crops, etc...
It's primitive and stupid. | |
|
| whose faces belong on mount rushmore?
Posted: 7/26/2008 2:04:28 PM | Maybe we can just replace it with a giant middle finger. Then have a couple human sized statues in front of it. That'll pretty much sum up what's going on.
Although, I can't believe you missed my favorite part about the pro-worker Reagan. When air traffic controllers went on strike demanding wages, breaks between staring at screens, and enough workers to actually watch the skies, he fired them all. Then, less than 20 years later so most of the fired controllers are still alive, they renamed National Airport in his honor. Although, what goes on at the Ronald Reagan building in DC is pretty ironic too... | |
|
Home
login 
