Tar Heel, do you write the "Dick and Jane" editions of history books?

Yes, FDR led the USA into WWII (after provoking Japan with a trade embargo meant to drive them to war, which it did). No Germany had not yet attacked the USA in any significant manner (there were a couple of U-boat incidents, but that happens in war all too easily and often by accident)...BUT...don't you remember...Hitler declared war ON the USA first!!!! FDR was then at war with Germany, courtesy of Adolf Hitler. So why blame FDR for it? Or didn't you know? (Secretly, FDR intended to go to war against Germany as soon as he could arrange it...and Hitler gave it to him on a platter...the second dumbest thing Hitler ever did...the first was invading Russia.)

You see, Tar Heel, when you set out to interpret history expressly for partisan purposes (to make Republicans look good and Democrats look bad, I mean) you will inevitably have to ignore or forget some details, deny others, and make up others as you go along in order to engage in a silly excercise that had no real point in the beginning anyway.

"Liberals" are the boogeyman in your closet, Tar Heel. They are your mythical monsters. There is nothing "liberal" about USA Democrats. The USA has 2 parties that by world standards are both reactionary and right wing, and frequent promoters of militarism and aggression abroad. Only in the USA could anyone imagine that the Democratic Party is "liberal" in its basic nature. Ha! Ha! Ha! I laugh.

Now. Vietnam. The US involvement there goes back to Eisenhower. Then Kennedy upped the ante a bit. Johnson (who ran on a "peace" ticket...ha! ha!...turned it into a major war. And Nixon continued it as a major war and finally threw in the towel and got out ("Vietnamization"...ha! ha!). I see no reason to quibble between the screwups of Dems and Reps on that one. They all screwed up.

Yeah, Clinton went to war in Bosnia, and Bush I went to war in the Middle East, and Bush II went to war in the Middle East. So? I see again no reason to favour one lot of scoundrels over the other in any of that.

Yeah, Clinton failed to take action against Osama. Yeah, Reagan did all kinds of illegal things in Central America, was tried by the World Court and found guilty for illegally attacking Nicaragua, and ignored the World Court totally...and supplied arms to the same Taliban fanatics in whose ranks Osama learned his trade in order to kill Russians, and...on and on...I see no reason to favour either Dems or Reps on that load of crap either.

You're living in a dream world, man...like arguing who's better: Al Capone or Meyer Lansky? Who should we choose to run our city from among these two fine gentleman?

You wouldn't know a real liberal if one fell in your lap. All you know is American party politics which is one bloodstained hand clapping in a total vacuum devoid of imagination or morality.

Now...worst president? God knows. There have been some dandies. It would be very hard to choose the absolute worst out of them all. It think we have to get more specific.

Most lascivious president: probably Clinton. Or Kennedy. Well, I guess it's a dead heat on that one. :-)

Most murderous: Andrew Jackson? Probably.

Most incompetent in running governemnt: Hmmm. Tough one. Probably Ulysses S. Grant. He was a great general, though.

Most paranoid: Nixon.

Most out of touch mentally while still in office: Reagan.

Least sexy: Bush # 1 (ask any woman)

Ugliest ears: LBJ

Biggest liar: Ummm...ummm...well...aw forget it! Too much competition on this one.

Most clumsy: Gerald Ford.

Most clumsy looking: Lincoln.

Most forgettable: I can't remember this guy's name.

Now isn't this more fun than trying to prove Republicans are better than Democrats? Next, let's try to prove that pigs are smellier than goats.

- LH