Greatest American - Page 3 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Konichiwaneko · 10-31-2004, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maveric

I'm sorry but I see this as flawed logic, imho. It's kinda like saying, Hitler was a "great" man because he was only doing what he thought was best for his country and the world...

just my $.02

"You can be a good man"

You have choice in that one line. THe person given the oppurtunity can choose to use what was given to him to be a person of a great caliber.

I didn't mean it to say "If you have the power, you will be a good person".

I see your point though, just wanted to tell you why I wrote that line.

Choice is what defines our life, if I was given the power of my land I can choice either to do good or bad, my actions would reflect into history books.

Concerning Idolization of War Figures, I believe a majority of it is because they excelled under conflict. War Figures tend to lay a more audible and visual foundation to our civilization. Throughout our history most of our civilization had it's peak when a former General or military person took an action or took control.

The founding of our country, the roman empire.

In the past through war we laid the foundation to our society, and then we let politics and civilians nuture and fertilize our ideals.

Now that war has merged more into a capatilistic battle field where the betterment of our society is not how much land we claim and people we rule, that's finite, but technology and innovation. Companies are battling each other to evolve humanity.

I think some of you would severly disagree with me, because it's a matter of point of view, but the healthiest thing about war is it allows us to be put in a situation far beyond what we consider normal and in that you have innovations and thought ideas that spawn from that which would of either gone stagnent or laid dorment for who knows how long.

I honestly believe, war is a catalyst for human thought and action, and that's why the idolization of War Figurines (Even if they are haunted by ghost, or just damn bad people in general) are on the top.

Maybe in 50 years, people would say things like bill gates, because the newspapers now show a person that was dislikable, but the history books in the future, with only their summaries will show a person more palatable and lacking those negative traits against them.

I've found this tread very interesting though seeing everyone people listed. Like I agree with Secret Method, I like MLK jr., but I think also he was a womanizer and he had affairs (from what I remember Neal Boortz saying), which are traits that disgust some people. The overall person, I cannot judge his personal affairs, I thought was a good person. Also I loved Bill Clinton, his charisma was wonderful and he was articulate...but he's political view points differ from me and he was a cheater. You don't have to be ghandi to be loved.

Vic Vega · 10-31-2004, 09:52 AM

How about Doyle Brunson?

What can I say -- I love poker, and he's the one who literally "wrote the book" on it.

Ustwo · 10-31-2004, 10:33 AM

Its quite simple.

War is more important than art in terms of a nations survival.

All the art in the world won't save you from the barbarian horde. No ones family was killed by the power of a painting.

Art may inspire action, but it is the action that makes the difference.

hammer4all · 10-31-2004, 02:51 PM

Quote:

WAR IS A RACKET

WAR is a racket. It always has been.

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.

In the World War [I] a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows.

How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench? How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets? How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were wounded or killed in battle?

Out of war nations acquire additional territory, if they are victorious. They just take it. This newly acquired territory promptly is exploited by the few – the selfsame few who wrung dollars out of blood in the war. The general public shoulders the bill.

"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National city Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902–1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested." --Major General Smedley Darlington Butler

Mephisto2 · 10-31-2004, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

A big part of the issue is what makes someone 'Great'.

Were they a Great American because without them America would have failed as a nation?
or were they are Great American because they embodied the American Ideal?

For the first, it would have to be Abraham Lincoln. While any of the founding fathers also fall into this category, Lincoln faced the first real challenge where if he failed the US would cease to exist as the US.

For the second, it would be Teddy Roosevelt. He was everything an American should be, his life couldn't have been written any more 'American' then it was.

Excellent point. I like your thinking here Ustwo.

Mr Mephisto

Mephisto2 · 10-31-2004, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Konichiwaneko

Mr. Mephisto, before I start I want to tell you I hold you with the utmost respect and though we don't agree with political views I am honor of your contributions, mostly of the nude variety, to the tfp. I ask you these question not to stir you up only to get a reply.

You won't stir me up at all! I enjoy debate and learn from others all the time. Your questions below are very interesting ones and they made me think quite a bit before replying. That's what this is all about!

Quote:

I notice you put these qualities for President Lincoln, I would like to see how you compare these traits to your political beliefs.

Sure thing.

Quote:

Lets start with this one

- [i]He alone (until US Grant) understood the gravity of the Civil War and what it would take to win it.[/u]

I believe General Grants strategy during the war was call "The grinder". Essentially it was pretty much throwing our men, not caring for casualties, to oppress the opponent. I'm sure back then it would be the same as now, people were appalled...yet the strategy worked in the end all history shows us that now. My question to you, would you accept President Bush if he was vindicated at the end, that his strategy that people saw was a huge mess turned out right?

Well, let's answer the last question first. Would I accept Bush if his strategy turned out right in the end? Yes. Yes I would. That is, insofar as it's up to me.

There are som differences though. First and foremost, the Union, the whole United States, is not fighting a Civil War now. It is not in the utmost danger of collapsing. And Bush is not throwing men and women into combat in the same way as Grant did.

Grant and Lincoln "did the numbers". They knew the Confederacy couldn't keep up with the casualties that the North could. But that was a sign of the times. No one, no President could do that today. Times have changed. People's beliefs in what is worth dying for has changed. And a lot of Americans don't believe that it's worth dying to ensure the Vice-President's cronies get some juicy oil contracts in Iraq (joke... kinda).

So in summary, if Bush were "proved right" would I accept him? Of course. But I honestly don't think he will be proved right in his war in Iraq, his environmental policy, his social policy. That's the problem with a lot these things. They're very subjective. The Civil War was pretty "cut and dry". Either the North won and preserved the Union, or the South won and destroyed the Union. I don't believe there's such an easy logic to the Iraqi conflict.

Quote:

- He was a politician who accepted he did not represent all Americans, but reached out to try to "save the Union."

Lincoln saw the United states as a great whole, not as a disfunctional society. Do you think Senator Kerry's constant berating of our government and it's disfunctional state going to backfire on him? What if he does aquire the president posistion, and in his 4 or 8 years can't fix what he considers broken. Do you think our people would subconciouslly feel that we are a broken society and nothing can fix us?

Well, whilst Lincoln tried to reach out and understood, especially before the Civil War broke out that it was incumbent upon him to govern by the law and for those who also did not support him, he was never afraid of lambasting or criticising the "opposition". And don't forget that Bush does the same! So, to be honest, I'm not sure if using Kerry's political criticism of the right is appropriate as a foil in this case. Bush attacks and criticises the left just as much (if not more).

Will Kerry's berating back-fire on him? Well, I don't think so. No more than Bush's berating has back-fired on him. There will always be people who argue for either side.

What if he doesn't "fix" things? I don't think any one man can fix the things broken in any society. Especially Kerry if the Congress has a Republican majority!

Will people continue to think the US is dysfunctional? Well, I don't think it is. It obviously is functional as a society. There are things that are not working right. Kerry and Bush both agree on that. But they both have different political agendas and political beliefs. My preference are for those promulgated by Kerry, but that doesn't mean I don't understand, or that I disrespect those of Bush and his supporters.

Quote:

- He was a great leader during the countries most dangerous time.

President Bush is far from being a great leader, I think both left and right can agree on that. Yet earlier you listed General Grant as an example, and history told us that he was terrible at his job as both general and president yet he got the job done. Do you think that President Bush can once again be vindicated because of this over time?

Well, I don't know if you could say Grant was terrible at his job as a general. Certainly as a President, but I'm not sure as a general.

Do I think Bush will be vindicated over time? Well, that depends upon the end result. I personally don't believe his strategy (if you will) is the best way to address the threats and challenges that America faces. Who know (though) what history will tell us. In a hundred and forty years from now, maybe Bush will be considered a great President. I don't argue that possibility. My gut feeling is that he won't be, but I've been wrong in the past.

Let me tell you one of the main reasons I don't think Bush will be considered a great President. Simply because of the polarization of US politics. I honestly believe he doesn't really care that much for those that disagree with him. The opposite can be said for Lincoln, who very much cared what the opposition felt and tried to always walk a middle ground (before civil war made this impossible).

Finally, if you are asking if Bush will ever be considered as great, or in the same league, as Lincoln, then no. I don't think so. Ever.

Let me add that I think the "right", the conservatives, the Republicans have produced many great politicans and Presidents. Lincoln himself for example. Even Reagan could be considered a great President (even though I don't support Reaganomics and some of his rush towards militarization), but he's certainly head and shoulders above Bush in stature, intelligence, charm and capabilitiy. Colin Powell would have made a great President. Cain would have made a great President.

But Bush? My honest opinion is no.

So I guess "my beef" (if you will) is not with conservatism as a whole, but with Bush in particular. I honestly don't think he's that great.

Quote:

I know you will give a good answer Mr. Mephisto.

Not sure if this is up to your expectations! LOL

Mr Mephisto

Ustwo · 10-31-2004, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

Let me tell you one of the main reasons I don't think Bush will be considered a great President. Simply because of the polarization of US politics. I honestly believe he doesn't really care that much for those that disagree with him. The opposite can be said for Lincoln, who very much cared what the opposition felt and tried to always walk a middle ground (before civil war made this impossible).

Mr Mephisto

You do know that people in the North that spoke against the war were put in jail without trial?

We had riots in NY the likes of which we have not seen before?

Don't use rose tinted glasses to look at the civil war or Lincoln.

Mephisto2 · 10-31-2004, 04:12 PM

Yes I do know that Ustwo. I'm also quite familiar with the anti-conscription riots (in which the Irish were very much involved unfortunately) that wracked New York.

Who is using rose tinted glasses? You yourself nominated Lincoln as (one of) the greatest Americans.

Funny how you can criticise me for sharing one of your opinions.

But hey, thanks for your concern.

Mr Mephisto

Konichiwaneko · 10-31-2004, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

You won't stir me up at all! I enjoy debate and learn from others all the time. Your questions below are very interesting ones and they made me think quite a bit before replying. That's what this is all about!

Sure thing.

Well, let's answer the last question first. Would I accept Bush if his strategy turned out right in the end? Yes. Yes I would. That is, insofar as it's up to me.

There are som differences though. First and foremost, the Union, the whole United States, is not fighting a Civil War now. It is not in the utmost danger of collapsing. And Bush is not throwing men and women into combat in the same way as Grant did.

Grant and Lincoln "did the numbers". They knew the Confederacy couldn't keep up with the casualties that the North could. But that was a sign of the times. No one, no President could do that today. Times have changed. People's beliefs in what is worth dying for has changed. And a lot of Americans don't believe that it's worth dying to ensure the Vice-President's cronies get some juicy oil contracts in Iraq (joke... kinda).

So in summary, if Bush were "proved right" would I accept him? Of course. But I honestly don't think he will be proved right in his war in Iraq, his environmental policy, his social policy. That's the problem with a lot these things. They're very subjective. The Civil War was pretty "cut and dry". Either the North won and preserved the Union, or the South won and destroyed the Union. I don't believe there's such an easy logic to the Iraqi conflict.

Well, whilst Lincoln tried to reach out and understood, especially before the Civil War broke out that it was incumbent upon him to govern by the law and for those who also did not support him, he was never afraid of lambasting or criticising the "opposition". And don't forget that Bush does the same! So, to be honest, I'm not sure if using Kerry's political criticism of the right is appropriate as a foil in this case. Bush attacks and criticises the left just as much (if not more).

Will Kerry's berating back-fire on him? Well, I don't think so. No more than Bush's berating has back-fired on him. There will always be people who argue for either side.

What if he doesn't "fix" things? I don't think any one man can fix the things broken in any society. Especially Kerry if the Congress has a Republican majority!

Will people continue to think the US is dysfunctional? Well, I don't think it is. It obviously is functional as a society. There are things that are not working right. Kerry and Bush both agree on that. But they both have different political agendas and political beliefs. My preference are for those promulgated by Kerry, but that doesn't mean I don't understand, or that I disrespect those of Bush and his supporters.

Well, I don't know if you could say Grant was terrible at his job as a general. Certainly as a President, but I'm not sure as a general.

Do I think Bush will be vindicated over time? Well, that depends upon the end result. I personally don't believe his strategy (if you will) is the best way to address the threats and challenges that America faces. Who know (though) what history will tell us. In a hundred and forty years from now, maybe Bush will be considered a great President. I don't argue that possibility. My gut feeling is that he won't be, but I've been wrong in the past.

Let me tell you one of the main reasons I don't think Bush will be considered a great President. Simply because of the polarization of US politics. I honestly believe he doesn't really care that much for those that disagree with him. The opposite can be said for Lincoln, who very much cared what the opposition felt and tried to always walk a middle ground (before civil war made this impossible).

Finally, if you are asking if Bush will ever be considered as great, or in the same league, as Lincoln, then no. I don't think so. Ever.

Let me add that I think the "right", the conservatives, the Republicans have produced many great politicans and Presidents. Lincoln himself for example. Even Reagan could be considered a great President (even though I don't support Reaganomics and some of his rush towards militarization), but he's certainly head and shoulders above Bush in stature, intelligence, charm and capabilitiy. Colin Powell would have made a great President. Cain would have made a great President.

But Bush? My honest opinion is no.

So I guess "my beef" (if you will) is not with conservatism as a whole, but with Bush in particular. I honestly don't think he's that great.

Not sure if this is up to your expectations! LOL

Mr Mephisto

I think those are great and well thought out answers, and I like you Mr. Mephisto. You would be someone worth talking to in real life, and seem to stand well on your belief.

I think you bring up very vaild points, and I'm going to study your approach for little bit.

Ustwo · 10-31-2004, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

Yes I do know that Ustwo. I'm also quite familiar with the anti-conscription riots (in which the Irish were very much involved unfortunately) that wracked New York.

Who is using rose tinted glasses? You yourself nominated Lincoln as (one of) the greatest Americans.

Funny how you can criticise me for sharing one of your opinions.

But hey, thanks for your concern.

Mr Mephisto

Lincoln was basically the same as Bush, he polarized the nation so badly that half of it revolted. Bush spoke of compromise and new tone etc, but his opposition would not listen and did not care. Lincoln didn’t bring the nation together, but several 100 thousand bodies did. That doesn’t mean he wasn’t a great man.

That being said, Bush won't be equal to Lincoln in greatness reguardless of the outcome in the Mid East. The stakes are not the same.

Mephisto2 · 10-31-2004, 05:05 PM

So looks like we agree Ustwo.

Mr Mephisto

daswig · 10-31-2004, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

I think you're misunderstanding this. If Kerry and Fonda were traitors, as you have repeatedly stated, then so was Vallandigham. You can't have it both ways.

Exactly as you have suggested for Kerry and Fonda. I can't remember, but I think you even went so far as to suggest hanging.

Actually, it was Lincoln who suggested hanging, not me. Please reread the original quote. Hanging would undoubtedly NOT pass Constitutional muster nowadays.

If it was good enough for Lincoln, one of our most revered Presidents, to do to Vallandigham, it's good enough for Fonda and Kerry.

Mephisto2 · 10-31-2004, 07:26 PM

I wasn't referring to the original quote. I was saying that I thought you had, in another thread, stated that Kerry and Fonda as traitors should have been hanged.

Maybe you didn't. I can see how I could have been confusing.

Mr Mephisto

Ustwo · 10-31-2004, 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

I wasn't referring to the original quote. I was saying that I thought you had, in another thread, stated that Kerry and Fonda as traitors should have been hanged.

Maybe you didn't. I can see how I could have been confusing.

Mr Mephisto

I would have deported them to N. Vietnam, would be a fitting punishment.

alansmithee · 10-31-2004, 08:15 PM

I would either nominate FDR or Kurt Vonnegut.

I still don't think FDR gets the credit he should. It was primarily his ideas that led the way through arguably 2 of America's 3 most trying periods.

Mephisto2 · 11-01-2004, 05:01 AM

Why Kurt Vonnegut?

Apart from writing some very strange fiction, what has he done? Just curious...

Mr Mephisto

Tophat665 · 11-01-2004, 05:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stompy

George W. Bush

Wrong!

Quote:

1. He's the most honest and up front president we've had in the past 30 years.

If by honest you mean psychologically incapable of telling the truth, then correct. Otherwise, Wrong!

Quote:

2. He got rid of Saddam. This is a good thing because Saddam was about to create weapons of mass destruction to use against those who love freedom.

Wrong! It's been proved to everyone but Fox News that Saddam was not about to create WMDs. If it was a good thing, it was because Hussein was a tyrant, and removing him has brought peace and stability to the people of Iraq. Oh. Wait a second. Wrong!

Quote:

3. The war on terror will totally eradicate all freedom-haters across the globe.

Truly, they will be voted out of office.

Quote:

Re: 2 and 3, I love my freedom. I don't want people to hate me because I'm free! I don't want to die by a WMD!

4. He has a clear and concise plan for everything. These can be viewed at http://www.georgewbush.com/

It can also be viewed at <a href="http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&passage=revelations&version=NIV">http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&passage=revelations&version=NIV</a>.

Quote:

If that isn't the greatest american, then I don't know what is!

And that is why I have difficulties giving Bush supporters any credit at all.

adysav · 11-01-2004, 05:46 AM

As a non-American I'm probably missing a lot of information and my list of prospective greats is undoubtedly shorter.

My nomination is Cassius Marcellus Clay, AKA Muhammad Ali.
An effortless master of his trade, but still committed to being the best he possibly could.
A man who was a great personality and one who stood up for what he believed was right. He was made a United Nations Messenger of Peace.

alansmithee · 11-01-2004, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

Why Kurt Vonnegut?

Apart from writing some very strange fiction, what has he done? Just curious...

Mr Mephisto

It is what he has written. I think the ideas in his writing are much more than "strange fiction". It is just unfortunate that he got started writing when alot of Americans were not interested in reading anymore. The ideas in his stories stand up to anyone, IMO. As far as I'm concerned, he is the greatest American writer ever

Lebell · 11-01-2004, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

So looks like we agree Ustwo.

Mr Mephisto

!?!?!

Is it the apocolypse??

daswig · 11-01-2004, 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adysav

My nomination is Cassius Marcellus Clay, AKA Muhammad Ali.
An effortless master of his trade, but still committed to being the best he possibly could.
A man who was a great personality and one who stood up for what he believed was right. He was made a United Nations Messenger of Peace.

Props to Ali. He opposed the Vietnam war. Instead of running away, he stood up and went to jail for his beliefs. I disagree with his position, but respect him for being a "stand up" guy...unlike the other people who ran away from the results of their actions.

hannukah harry · 11-01-2004, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tophat665

Wrong!

If by honest you mean psychologically incapable of telling the truth, then correct. Otherwise, Wrong!

Wrong! It's been proved to everyone but Fox News that Saddam was not about to create WMDs. If it was a good thing, it was because Hussein was a tyrant, and removing him has brought peace and stability to the people of Iraq. Oh. Wait a second. Wrong!

Truly, they will be voted out of office.

It can also be viewed at <a href="http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&passage=revelations&version=NIV">http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&passage=revelations&version=NIV</a>.

And that is why I have difficulties giving Bush supporters any credit at all.

i think one quality that whomever the greatest american is should have is the ability to get non-subtle sarcasm.

/not sure if i'm being sarcastic...

daswig · 11-01-2004, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tophat665

Wrong! It's been proved to everyone but Fox News that Saddam was not about to create WMDs.

What's your source for this little tidbit? The CIA WMD report said differently. In fact, it went as far as to say that they found 53 WMDs, and at least one bunker FILLED with chemical weapons that they haven't opened yet. How do they know it's filled with chemical weapons? Because they are weapons reported by Saddam to the UN, the UN inspected them and then sealed them in the bunker with a wire twist-tie, and they haven't broken the twist-tie yet.

Mephisto2 · 11-01-2004, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

Props to Ali. He opposed the Vietnam war. Instead of running away, he stood up and went to jail for his beliefs. I disagree with his position, but respect him for being a "stand up" guy...unlike the other people who ran away from the results of their actions.

ROFL

That's rich.

As opposed to people who ran away entirely, and hid in the National Guard rather than fight bravely for their country.

Mr Mephisto

daswig · 11-01-2004, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

As opposed to people who ran away entirely, and hid in the National Guard rather than fight bravely for their country.

How do you hide in the national guard? Even Kerry has said Bush's service in the National Guard was real service, hasn't he?

Suave · 11-01-2004, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

Sounds like quite the White Supremacist, doesn't he?

Not particularly, no. He sounds like a pessimist more than anything. I didn't say anything in his speeches that said "whites are better than blacks", which would have been perfectly acceptable, even welcomed, in that time. I saw "society will not allow it" (and society did not), and "it is not realistically feasible" (which it was not), and finally, "if one of our races is to have power, I prefer that it be mine". I don't think there is a single person on the planet who can hoenstly say that, given the choice of one or the other, they would not rather have their race in power rather than another.

It looks to me like you're on a mission to stir shit up.

fuzyfuzer · 11-01-2004, 07:44 PM

eli whitney

the man who both, more or less caused the slavery issue in the civil war and (arguably) won it for the north. this is a real american genious because of the idea of the interchangable part. without that ford could never have built his factories and our industrial giant of a system would not have existed making us a wash. this man basiclly is responsable in many ways for modern society. his inventions make him the best american ever.

Konichiwaneko · 11-01-2004, 07:49 PM

seems he's also inventor of the power point slide

fuzyfuzer · 11-01-2004, 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Konichiwaneko

seems he's also inventor of the power point slide

if only if only, then he would be trully fasinating

10-31-2004, 09:52 AM	#82 (permalink)
Vic Vega Upright Location: The Great State of Texas	How about Doyle Brunson? What can I say -- I love poker, and he's the one who literally "wrote the book" on it. __________________ Are you going to bark all day, little doggy ... or are you going to bite?

10-31-2004, 10:33 AM	#83 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Its quite simple. War is more important than art in terms of a nations survival. All the art in the world won't save you from the barbarian horde. No ones family was killed by the power of a painting. Art may inspire action, but it is the action that makes the difference. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

11-01-2004, 07:44 PM	#107 (permalink)
fuzyfuzer Insane Location: st. louis	eli whitney the man who both, more or less caused the slavery issue in the civil war and (arguably) won it for the north. this is a real american genious because of the idea of the interchangable part. without that ford could never have built his factories and our industrial giant of a system would not have existed making us a wash. this man basiclly is responsable in many ways for modern society. his inventions make him the best american ever. __________________ "The difference between commiment and involvment is like a ham and egg breakfast the chicken was involved but the pig was commited" "Thrice happy is the nation that has a glorious history. Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat." Theodore Roosevelt

11-01-2004, 07:49 PM	#108 (permalink)
Konichiwaneko The Dreaded Pixel Nazi Location: Inside my camera	seems he's also inventor of the power point slide __________________ Hesitate. Pull me in. Breath on breath. Skin on skin. Loving deep. Falling fast. All right here. Let this last. Here with our lips locked tight. Baby the time is right for us... to forget about us.

10-31-2004, 04:12 PM	#88 (permalink)
Mephisto2 Junkie	Yes I do know that Ustwo. I'm also quite familiar with the anti-conscription riots (in which the Irish were very much involved unfortunately) that wracked New York. Who is using rose tinted glasses? You yourself nominated Lincoln as (one of) the greatest Americans. Funny how you can criticise me for sharing one of your opinions. But hey, thanks for your concern. Mr Mephisto

10-31-2004, 05:05 PM	#91 (permalink)
Mephisto2 Junkie	So looks like we agree Ustwo. Mr Mephisto

10-31-2004, 07:26 PM	#93 (permalink)
Mephisto2 Junkie	I wasn't referring to the original quote. I was saying that I thought you had, in another thread, stated that Kerry and Fonda as traitors should have been hanged. Maybe you didn't. I can see how I could have been confusing. Mr Mephisto

10-31-2004, 08:15 PM	#95 (permalink)
alansmithee Junkie	I would either nominate FDR or Kurt Vonnegut. I still don't think FDR gets the credit he should. It was primarily his ideas that led the way through arguably 2 of America's 3 most trying periods.

11-01-2004, 05:01 AM	#96 (permalink)
Mephisto2 Junkie	Why Kurt Vonnegut? Apart from writing some very strange fiction, what has he done? Just curious... Mr Mephisto

11-01-2004, 05:46 AM	#98 (permalink)
adysav Insane	As a non-American I'm probably missing a lot of information and my list of prospective greats is undoubtedly shorter. My nomination is Cassius Marcellus Clay, AKA Muhammad Ali. An effortless master of his trade, but still committed to being the best he possibly could. A man who was a great personality and one who stood up for what he believed was right. He was made a United Nations Messenger of Peace.