Topic: Favorite political figure? (Read 4147 times)

Napoleon Bonaparte for me
He fought many monarch and kingdom in Napoleonic Wars
too bad he lose at waterloo

Tito! People from former Yugoslavia will know who i'm talking about. I would add picture but someone might hate me for it Josip Broz Tito, best ever made.

yes Abraham Lincoln is very rare political figure in the history. Abraham Lincoln (February 12, 1809 – April 15, 1865) was the 16th president of the United States, serving from March 1861 until his assassination in April 1865. Lincoln led the United States through its Civil War—its bloodiest war and its greatest moral, constitutional and political crisis. In so doing he preserved the Union, abolished slavery, strengthened the federal government, and modernized the economy.

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was the preeminent leader of Indian nationalism in British-ruled India. Employing nonviolent civil disobedience, Gandhi led India to independence and inspired movements for civil rights and freedom across the world.

Talking about Hilary Clinton's character and speech abilities, her adventures in Bosnia comes to my mind.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I23fjRN-PGc

May god save the United States if this women is ever elected as the POTUS.

I like Putin because in time when SAD is controling everything he has the courage to stand up against them and keep some power in his hands.

What about Hilary Clinton? 

Robert the Bruce
Henry V
Joanne d'Arc
Leonardo Da Vinci

All jokes aside, I adore Obama's character and speech abilities

My fav type of political figure. Starry eyed smirky shock puppets. At least you know where they stand and they are that disingenuous that they cannot fool people into trusting them.

All of them. The bitter, idiotic, murders... They've all shaped the world into some way. Positive, or negative.

i admire john f. Kennedy. it seems he was a politician who actually cared about the rights of the people. he tried warning us of the system which rules the world today. i also like that he was once a soldier (a sailor in the navy) i hate the way politicians these days send men to war these days. It's better to have a president who know the affects of war.

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character"

M.L.K. Jr.

Except it led to the support of genocide in Guatemala.

Reagan was really pretty bad at foreign affairs, very inhumane, often downright illegal, and started off fairly poorly at being able to manage the Soviet Union.

Aside from direct support for death squads in Latin America, and the support of the genocide against the Mayans in Guatemala, we also directly funded a devastating civil war in Angola, fomented instability in the DR Congo, pretty much stood alone in recognizing and supporting apartheid in South Africa, acted rashly and with little understanding in Lebanon, lost the momentum of Camp David by ignoring the entire thing, botched the handling of Gaddafi, brought the US recklessly close to conflict with the Soviet Union (until he reversed course), and was generally fairly sloppy in his foreign affairs dealings. I might not rank him as bad as Nixon and Kissinger, but he engaged in a lot of immoral diplomacy that Clinton, George W. Bush, Obama and perhaps even HW Bush couldn't have even dreamed of getting away with (though Bush W. tried).

He had zero foreign policy experience going into the presidency but simultaneously had very strong feelings concerning it and the result was fairly disastrous for global stability at first. It was only really after he got caught with the Iran-Contra scandal that he got his ducks in a row foreign policy wise (so for most of his presidency he was largely inept).

One of his largest foreign policy successes was in Afghanistan and that move left the Taliban in power via his "whatever we need to do to win" strategy.

President Reagan's philosophy when it came to dealing with America's enemies was "Peace through strength."

That's a good philosophy to have, I think.

I have a couple of people who have inspired the way I see the world.

Peter Kropotkin
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Kropotkin

Recommended read: http://libcom.org/library/the-conquest-of-bread-peter-kropotkin


George Orwell
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Orwell

Recommended read: http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks02/0201111.txt


And in newer times what Enric Durant did in Spain I find truly inspiring:

Took up upwards of 60 loans from 30 different banks in spain totalling 492 000 euros, gave it all away to anticapitalist organizations so that they could grow and is now on the run from the law, some of the projects can be seen here:

https://calafou.org/en <-- Occupied permaculture/hacklab outside of Barcelona, this is where Amir Taaki has been working from lately(darkwallet, etc).
http://cooperativa.cat/en/ <-- a cooperative of cooperatives building a seperate economy/society based on anarchist principles of mutual aid and voluntary participation.

what we find creepy is actually a good test (how widespread is incest in India?)
altough I have no bloody idea how the granddaughter agreed to this

That's because he was the most recent trans-formative president. Before him was FDR. It's always a love/hate relationship.

Reagan took America from being the world's largest creditor to being the world's largest debtor.
We don't even have to get into his scandals or his love for the Taliban to discern that he was a mediocre president at best.
Also he admitted he's the best president of my lifetime.
But that's not setting the bar very high

Good Riddance!!!

FACT: The national debt more than quadrupled on Reagan's watch, from $700 billion to nearly $3 trillion. The trade deficit also more than quadrupled, to $137.3 billion. The budget imbalances--the exact opposite of Reagan's goal--were partly the result of the military buildup and partly because neither the administration nor Congress made any significant reductions in domestic spending. But the largest single reason for the mounting deficits was that the vaunted "supply-side" tax cuts failed to deliver their promised economic growth. In the six years of the Reagan presidency after the recession ended, the nation's private wealth grew by 8 percent. In contrast, in the five years between 1975 and 1980, a period often described by Reagan as unproductive, private wealth increased 31 percent.

Deal with it.