NationStates Jolt Archive

There have been a ton of bad presidents. Grant, Nixon, Clinton, LBJ -- but, in my opinion, the absolute worst was Jimmy Carter. Completely inept at foreign policy and a detriment to domestic policy, the guy was a loser all the way around. What's even worse is that he continues to be a thorn in the side of the US. Hell, the only good thing he's done is his work with Habitat for Humanity.

NOTE: I just know there will be a slew of kneejerk idiots hollering "GEORGE BUSH IS SATAN!" in this thread. Get a grip. He's definitely not the best president we've ever had, but he's far from the worst.

Well, Carter nearly decriminalized marijuana. Imagine all the money on the "war on drugs" that could have been saved if he had. I don't think Carter is the worst.

Oddly, I find it hard to pick just one for the "worst." I think it's probably one of the ones no one ever talks about, because they didn't accomplish anything that stands out in history. But I can't say because I was only educated on the big names.

Carter was indeed horrible (he should be tried for crimes against humanity), but he wasn't quite as bad as Lincoln or FDR.

How about Hoover, he was a real asshole. What with the scandals and depression and all. And Bush Snr. Porridge

Bush is up there, but I'd have to say Grant is worst of all time.

I don't see why people hate Clinton so much though, he was one of the better presidents. Thriving economy, good foreign relations, and he even stopped a few nuclear wars. So he fucked around a little, that has nothing to do with his politics.

-edit- then again there's William Henry Harrison. What an idiot.

Truman and Reagan both surely merit trial for 'crimes against humanity' far more than Carter. John Quincy Adams seemed to be a bit of a dick as well. I think it's much harder to pin an especial worst one, however. Perhaps Kennedy, on grounds of in general being so overrated?

Abraham Lincoln.
Suspended haebeas corups, instituted a draft, violated the Constitution more times than I can count, just about re-interpreted the Constitution (goodbye to states' rights, for a while), tyrannized the border states of the Union during the civil war.......

There have been a ton of bad presidents. Grant, Nixon, Clinton, LBJ -- but, in my opinion, the absolute worst was Jimmy Carter. Completely inept at foreign policy and a detriment to domestic policy, the guy was a loser all the way around. What's even worse is that he continues to be a thorn in the side of the US. Hell, the only good thing he's done is his work with Habitat for Humanity.

NOTE: I just know there will be a slew of kneejerk idiots hollering "GEORGE BUSH IS SATAN!" in this thread. Get a grip. He's definitely not the best president we've ever had, but he's far from the worst.

I find it hard to believe anyone would actually consider Carter as a greater evil than the current president.

Bad foreign policy? Check.

Detriment to domestic policy? Check.

Your witty retort to those who might suggest Bush, 'get a grip'...hardly a refutation. Which are the policies or qualities that elevate Bush above Carter... and which are those that lower Carter sufficiently that Bush remains in the running?

Carter did negotiate the Camp David Accords, the greatest American foreign policy feat in the Middle East since the creation of Israel.

I'd say the worst is either Nixon (for obvious reasons) or Reagan.

AIDS became an important issue very early in Reagan's first term, however Reagan refused to even mention AIDS until 1987, at which point he still failed to allow any federal funding to combat it. If we had gotten a decade's head start, imagine where AIDS research would be today. Reagan also wasted billions of federal dollars on his SDI program nicknamed "Star Wars." Despite his deep cuts into important social programs, he still ran the highest debts (as % of GDP) in American hisotry. But the worst is the Iran Contra Scanadal, where Reagan's administration directly contravened a decision by Congress.

Truman and Reagan both surely merit trial for 'crimes against humanity' far more than Carter. John Quincy Adams seemed to be a bit of a dick as well. I think it's much harder to pin an especial worst one, however. Perhaps Kennedy, on grounds of in general being so overrated?

Carter should be tried by Rhodesians, Nicaraguans, and Iranians for crimes against humanity.

Andrew Johnson.

His horrible reconstruction program was one of the worst things ever done in the US. Instead of a slow steady integration of slaves into the mainstream, he set the stage for terrible "race" relations for a long, long time, due to the southern backlash against reconstruction.

Martin Van Buren :P
Man that guy was wierd.

Carter should be tried by Rhodesians, Nicaraguans, and Iranians for crimes against humanity.

I know, and I agree. But that really wasn't my point. He never dropped an atom bomb; he never delayed speaking out on American's most serious medical issue for 8 years.

I know, and I agree. But that really wasn't my point. He never dropped an atom bomb; he never delayed speaking out on American's most serious medical issue for 8 years.

That's true.

Carter was indeed horrible (he should be tried for crimes against humanity), but he wasn't quite as bad as Lincoln or FDR.
RB, what's your problem with Lincoln and FDR? I understand FDR was a bit too socialist for your tastes, and too kind too the USSR, and Lincoln was at times tyrannical. Still, don't desperate times call for desperate measures?

Martin Van Buren :P
Man that guy was wierd.

I knew I liked you for good reason. ;)

Carter did negotiate the Camp David Accords, the greatest American foreign policy feat in the Middle East since the creation of Israel.

I think some people would question whether the creation of Israel was a great feat of foreign policy.

1. LBJ
2. Carter
3. Chester Arthur

I know, and I agree. But that really wasn't my point. He never dropped an atom bomb; he never delayed speaking out on American's most serious medical issue for 8 years.
AIDs was not, and is not America's most serious medical issue. Heart disease and cancer kill more people by far, and neither of those is as easily preventable.

RB, what's your problem with Lincoln and FDR? I understand FDR was a bit too socialist for your tastes, and too kind too the USSR, and Lincoln was at times tyrannical. Still, don't desperate times call for desperate measures?

Why the hell couldn't Lincoln just let the South secede?

Rutherford B. Hayes. I know nothing about him, so surely he's hiding something.

Still, don't desperate times call for desperate measures?
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety
Benjamin Franklin

Grant wasn't a saint, either.

If I thought this war was about slavery, I would resign my commission and offer my sword to the other side.

He committed genocide against the Plains Indians, was a slaveowner, an anti-Semite, one of history's greatest nepotists, and his administration was among the most corrupt in history.

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety
Benjamin Franklin
Oh come on. Lincoln did supercede the constitution at times, but we haven't devolved into a dictatorship, now have we? (Make one idiotic crack about GW and I will hang you by your genitalia...)

AIDs was not, and is not America's most serious medical issue. Heart disease and cancer kill more people by far, and neither of those is as easily preventable.

Don't try to apologise for his approach to the problem. Yes, I'm exaggerating, fine - but that in no way excuses his bigoted attempts to ignore what is still a major problem. And, how is AIDS easily preventable when the government refuses to acknowledge its existence, and dispense advice and aid towards prevention?

Why the hell couldn't Lincoln just let the South secede?

Economics. Maybe not very noble in the short term, but I suppose he would justify on the grounds of preserving the union - that it would set a dangerous precedent.

I'd have to say Carter is the worst president. I tend to consider Reagan to be one of the best US presidents.

Why the hell couldn't Lincoln just let the South secede?
1. Slavery would have continued.
2. America could not survive as a major power when divided into two nations. Both segments heavily depended on each other economically.
3. It would have set a horrible precedent. Every time a state doesn't like Presidential results, they secede? Anarchy and choas are the result.
4. America is strong because of its mix of opinion. Every healthy democracy needs a healthy mix of views and areas.

Oh come on. Lincoln did supercede the constitution at times, but we haven't devolved into a dictatorship, now have we?
No, and even though it didn't when Lincoln was around, he kept a rather tight fist over the Republican Party. The only reason he was ever re-elected was the Union army started to *actually* win!

(Make one idiotic crack about GW and I will hang you by your genitalia...)
Why would I say something about George Washington? He was great! XD

Originally posted by Hertfordland
I think some people would question whether the creation of Israel was a great feat of foreign policy.

I didn't mean to suggest that it was a great feat of foreign policy. However, it did change the entire political structure of the Middle East, and therefore it is difficult to compare the importance of events prior to its creation to those after its creation.

Why the hell couldn't Lincoln just let the South secede?

Because his political aspirations required a war.

Why does that sound so familiar....

Don't try to apologise for his approach to the problem. Yes, I'm exaggerating, fine - but that in no way excuses his bigoted attempts to ignore what is still a major problem. And, how is AIDS easily preventable when the government refuses to acknowledge its existence, and dispense advice and aid towards prevention?

At the time, most people already knew how AIDs spread. Sex. Just don't f*ck everything that moves, for Christ's sake, and you'll be fine. And while he was ignorant of it, it wasn't really bigotry, just that it wasn't one of his priorities.

Why does that sound so familiar....
James K. Polk.
"54 40' or fight!" - his campaign slogan

The worst has got to be Lyndon Johnson. He bogged the US down into an unwinnable jungle war, killed millions of Vietnamese people, and destroyed their country. In America, he started counter-productive social programmes and ineffective gun control.

RB, what's your problem with Lincoln and FDR? I understand FDR was a bit too socialist for your tastes, and too kind too the USSR, and Lincoln was at times tyrannical. Still, don't desperate times call for desperate measures?
RB thinks that the US should have stayed out of WW2, since we all know that his taxes are too high a price to pay for the hundreds of millions saved from Nazi and Fascist genocide and repression.

I think some people would question whether the creation of Israel was a great feat of foreign policy.
Yes, it was. As a people relentlessly discriminated against, the Jews needed a state of their own. I don't like many things Israel does now, but it should exist.

No, and even though it didn't when Lincoln was around, he kept a rather tight fist over the Republican Party. The only reason he was ever re-elected was the Union army started to *actually* win!


Why would I say something about George Washington? He was great! XD
Well, he's head of the Republican Party, so why can't he control it? They made him head of their party, so why should they complain? If they didn't like it, they could vote for the Dems.

Clever, clever, clever...

At the time, most people already knew how AIDs spread. Sex. Just don't f*ck everything that moves, for Christ's sake, and you'll be fine. And while he was ignorant of it, it wasn't really bigotry, just that it wasn't one of his priorities.

How the fuck did most people know how it spread when the AMA hadn't figured it out yet? Would you care to support that generalisation with a source? And it's lack of protection that leads to transmission, and not necessarily promiscuity. You're also ignoring the risk posed by infection from needles, to name but one of several other sources of infection. And if the primary wave of infection had been among white, non-drug using heterosexuals, you can bet it would top of his priority list.

The worst has got to be Lyndon Johnson. He bogged the US down into an unwinnable jungle war, killed millions of Vietnamese people, and destroyed their country. In America, he started counter-productive social programmes and ineffective gun control.

Vietnam was not "unwinnable." But that's a different story for a different thread, and I've already refuted that one more times than I can count.

And what about the millions of people the North Vietnamese killed?


RB thinks that the US should have stayed out of WW2, since we all know that his taxes are too high a price to pay for the hundreds of millions saved from Nazi and Fascist genocide and repression.

A)It's not our job to police the world

B)It'd have been better to let the Nazis and Soviets wipe each out. Two birds with one stone, and all that.

There have been a ton of bad presidents. Grant, Nixon, Clinton, LBJ -- but, in my opinion, the absolute worst was Jimmy Carter. Completely inept at foreign policy and a detriment to domestic policy, the guy was a loser all the way around. What's even worse is that he continues to be a thorn in the side of the US. Hell, the only good thing he's done is his work with Habitat for Humanity.

NOTE: I just know there will be a slew of kneejerk idiots hollering "GEORGE BUSH IS SATAN!" in this thread. Get a grip. He's definitely not the best president we've ever had, but he's far from the worst.

Carter was without a doubt the worst beyond compare, that is until Clinton came along and gave him a run for his money. Carter was a well intentioned idiot and coward that had no spine what so ever when it came to dealing with the Soviet Union, to the point that he almost caused the collapse of this country instead of the other way around.
Clinton on the other hand is nothing more than common criminal (convicted felon) and traitor who sold top secret defense secrets to the chinese for cash, ignored terrorist attacks on U.S. citizens, and Installations while releasing convicted murderers, terrorists, and cartel linked drug importers for cash and endorsements.
This clown did nothing but turn the Presidental office into his own personal playground and take credit for absolutely everything that others preceeding him did and completely embarrass an entire nation with the help of a devoted and completely corrupted media. He is absolutely qualified and deserving of a high level position at the UN.

At the time, most people already knew how AIDs spread. Sex. Just don't f*ck everything that moves, for Christ's sake, and you'll be fine. And while he was ignorant of it, it wasn't really bigotry, just that it wasn't one of his priorities.
I'll mainly agree there, but Reagan's ignoring of the AIDS problem let it spread from the homosexual population to the heterosexual population. By ignoring the vectors (intraveneous drug use, anal sex/bisexuals, blood transfusions, etc.) he let it spread far more than it should have. It also delayed the research for a possible cure that would have saved everyone, heterosexuals and homosexuals alike, from the disease.

Carter was without a doubt the worst beyond compare, that is until Clinton came along and gave him a run for his money. Carter was a well intentioned idiot and coward that had no spine what so ever when it came to dealing with the Soviet Union, to the point that he almost caused the collapse of this country instead of the other way around.
Clinton on the other hand is nothing more than common criminal (convicted felon) and traitor who sold top secret defense secrets to the chinese for cash, ignored terrorist attacks on U.S. citizens, and Installations while releasing convicted murderers, terrorists, and cartel linked drug importers for cash and endorsements.
This clown did nothing but turn the Presidental office into his own personal playground and take credit for absolutely everything that others preceeding him did and completely embarrass an entire nation with the help of a devoted and completely corrupted media. He is absolutely qualified and deserving of a high level position at the UN.

Wow. Say, you're one of those nice people who talk to God on a two-way radio, aren't you?

So that's all worse than Iran-Contra, SDI, massive deficits, voodoo economics, ignoring AIDS, massive deregulation, 125+ administration officials indicted with FOUR special prosecutors involved, and much more?

Look, pal, to make a case for "worst president" there's gotta be across-the-aisle condemnation of a vast proportion of things they did. I no more agree that Reagan was the worst than I'd agree that Clinton was the worst. You wanna have a partisan debate over who pissed you off the most, that's fine, but that's not what the thread's question was.

It's pathetically easy to lynch a president's reputation when the opposing party was in charge of the house/senate and doing little else but searching for anything to discredit the sitting leader from the other party. Democrats did it to Reagan in the 80s, and Republicans did it to Clinton in the 90s.

How's about a little balance?

Carter was without a doubt the worst beyond compare, that is until Clinton came along and gave him a run for his money. Carter was a well intentioned idiot and coward that had no spine what so ever when it came to dealing with the Soviet Union, to the point that he almost caused the collapse of this country instead of the other way around.
Clinton on the other hand is nothing more than common criminal (convicted felon) and traitor who sold top secret defense secrets to the chinese for cash, ignored terrorist attacks on U.S. citizens, and Installations while releasing convicted murderers, terrorists, and cartel linked drug importers for cash and endorsements.
This clown did nothing but turn the Presidental office into his own personal playground and take credit for absolutely everything that others preceeding him did and completely embarrass an entire nation with the help of a devoted and completely corrupted media. He is absolutely qualified and deserving of a high level position at the UN.

Well said!

James K. Polk.
"54 40' or fight!" - his campaign slogan

So you know nothing about Polk, let alone that era. "54-40 Or Fight" wasn't Polk's idea. Some Polk highlights:

*Seized the Southwest from Mexico.
*Eliminated tariffs.
*Forced Britain to sell the Oregon Territory.
*Crafted an independent treasury.
*Did it all in one term and sought no second term.

All in all, far from the worst. Read a book or something.

I don't know who the best or worst president America has ever had was, but I just want to say one thing I've noticed reading this thread. Every single one of these presidents had a lot of seriously difficult choices to make, and I don't think we should judge them so harshly unless we really know what we would have done in their shoes. What's the criteria for a bad president anyways? Their politics? I think if they stayed true to their political views in the decisions that they made while in office, they couldn't have been that bad. Regardless of what those political views were.
Just a thought.

You obviously didn't read the TOS. All NSers are obliged to be judgemental.

Vietnam was not "unwinnable." But that's a different story for a different thread, and I've already refuted that one more times than I can count.

And what about the millions of people the North Vietnamese killed?




A)It's not our job to police the world

B)It'd have been better to let the Nazis and Soviets wipe each out. Two birds with one stone, and all that.

Did you forget about an incident called Pearl Harbor? Did you forget about the fact that Hitler declared war on the US? DId you forget that Hitler was planning on global domination(history channel. don't see it, watch it)? What about the millions of americans that would have died if Hitler and the Japanese took over? The Japanese were completely ruthless and evil while the Nazis were genocidal maniacs. Both had campaigns of death and destruction.

There have been a ton of bad presidents. Grant, Nixon, Clinton, LBJ

Could you tell a foreigner what Clinton did to be considerate one of the worst president ever?

You obviously didn't read the TOS. All NSers are obliged to be judgemental.

Oh, I'm judgemental all right, just not about people who won't know what I think of them. If I'm going to judge somebody, they're darn well going to know it. So it's kind of silly to be pointing fingers at people who are either dead or won't ever know what you think, or both.

Thomas Jefferson. Embargo of 1800 wrecked the economy. What a douche.

Top 5 worst:

1) William Howard Taft (he made he income tax, which is technically illegal)
2) George W. Bush (Fasciast puppet)
3) Franklin Pierce (sad story. His son died right before he became President, and then his heart just wasn't in it)
4) John Adams (messed up Jefferson's view of America, so Jefferson had to come fix it)
5) Herbert Hoover (just like Bush, he sees the stock market go up, and then BANG!)

Wow. Say, you're one of those nice people who talk to God on a two-way radio, aren't you?

Actually I am a nice person but God has nothing to do with it. I just remember some of those little facts that moonbats and marxists on the Left coast so conveniently forget when it comes to their mistakes. Especially since I was a Democrat that had his party hijacked by them. I don't much care for the Republican Party, but I absolutely despise what they have done to the Democratic Party.

Did you forget about an incident called Pearl Harbor? Did you forget about the fact that Hitler declared war on the US? DId you forget that Hitler was planning on global domination(history channel. don't see it, watch it)? What about the millions of americans that would have died if Hitler and the Japanese took over? The Japanese were completely ruthless and evil while the Nazis were genocidal maniacs. Both had campaigns of death and destruction.

The Japanese only attacked because FDR provoked them. See my list of sources in the "Best American President," thread. And as I said before, we should have let the Nazis and Soviets wipe each other out.

I don't know who the best or worst president America has ever had was, but I just want to say one thing I've noticed reading this thread. Every single one of these presidents had a lot of seriously difficult choices to make, and I don't think we should judge them so harshly unless we really know what we would have done in their shoes. What's the criteria for a bad president anyways? Their politics? I think if they stayed true to their political views in the decisions that they made while in office, they couldn't have been that bad. Regardless of what those political views were.
Just a thought.

Well said!

Thomas Jefferson. Embargo of 1800 wrecked the economy. What a douche.

THAT makes him the worst President ever???

I think a good president is rated on how much he did for the country, to change it. Those useless "gilded age" presidents could be considered the worst, especially grant. Other ones who failed were James Buchanan, who allowed the South To cede from the union without doing a thing.

Worst Presidents
1Grant
2Harding
3Zachary Taylor
4 Andrew Johnson

The Japanese only attacked because FDR provoked them. See my list of sources in the "Best American President," thread. And as I said before, we should have let the Nazis and Soviets wipe each other out.

I really don't want to get into what I suspect is something of a pet topic. All I'd say is that quite a lot of Brits are quite glad America got involved. (Not me - it would have helped a lot with my German exam. God. Someone shoot me next time I try to make a joke.)

A)It's not our job to police the world

B)It'd have been better to let the Nazis and Soviets wipe each out. Two birds with one stone, and all that.
A) That is true, to an extent. But sometimes...sometimes you cannot just sit idly by. You cannot let innocents simply be swept away like that. Evil must be combatted RB, no matter if it directly affects us or not.
B) Firstly, the casualties would be immense. And secondly, the Soviets would have most likely won out. Would you want a Europe completely controlled by the Soviets?

B)It'd have been better to let the Nazis and Soviets wipe each out. Two birds with one stone, and all that.

If you study WWII history, you might realize that Stalin was so unprepared for the war that, without allied aid, He would easily have been defeated.3/4 of Russia's industrial production was in German hands at the peak of operation barberossa. He could never have won without our help. And if we had not helped him, Germany probably would have won the far. Kind of a lose lose choice.

Ummmmm... worst president would either need to be the current one or Hoover. Hoover, in the face of a humongous crisis, refused to help his people with social programs, while the current president has transformed us into a hated force around the world, has killed over 1001,500 people in his stupid war for oil, transformed a large surplus into a 15 trillion dollar deficit, and has actually increased the chances of terrorism around the world, not to mention using 1984 style tactics to push these terrible programs such as "no child left behind" which is more like "kill the education program", or "clear forests and healthy skies", which is more like "kill the environment". It's really crazy.

What's people's problem with FDR and Clinton? FDR got us through the largest economic crisis in history and through a world war, and people still hate him, while Clinton got us this huge surplus and handled Yugoslavia, yet people still hate him mainly because of his scandal. You know, if a president's personal life is more important than his job, that's really sad.

The worst can't be the popular choices like Clinton, Nixon, or Carter. Clinton balanced the budget and made the US even more powerful. People say he's the worst because of one lady. Nixon helped our relations from China go from horrible to good. He also took us out of Vietnam and had a cease fire going on there. Of course, North vietnam broke the cease fire and Congress refused to let us do anything about it. He's hated because of a little incident in a hotel, in which his involvement was unproven. Carter. Let's see. He was a man of peace. He wasn't one to send our entire military into a small country. He wanted peace. He helped to try to settle the Isreal-palestine dispute. He lost because of the Iranian hostage incident. One mistake caused people to consider him to be worse than Satan. One mistake. He should have sent some soldiers over there. Maybe the Iranians were trying to get Reagan elected? After all, they did let the hostages go after Reagan became president in January of 1981. Come on. Some of you believe that FDR purposely let Japan attack us. He didn't know where they would strike. He just knew that it was somewhere in the Pacific. Of course, there's the issue of if he knew about a planned Japanese attack in the first place.

A) That is true, to an extent. But sometimes...sometimes you cannot just sit idly by. You cannot let innocents simply be swept away like that. Evil must be combatted RB, no matter if it directly affects us or not.
B) Firstly, the casualties would be immense. And secondly, the Soviets would have most likely won out. Would you want a Europe completely controlled by the Soviets?

what are you talking about? As I said in my last post, Stalin couldn't have won. Anyway, if we had not joined, one side or the other would have won complete control. This would have left us in an even worse situation.

I'm tempted to say Abraham Lincoln, if only because of all the evil that might have been prevented if the United States had been allowed to fall apart in the 19th century.

But, to be fair, I'll have to say Ronald Reagan - definitely the most outright evil US president.

We should have let the Nazis and Soviets wipe each other out.
That's funny. I never knew you were an advocate of genocide.

Top 5 worst:

5) Herbert Hoover (just like Bush, he sees the stock market go up, and then BANG!)

Please post whatever documentation you think you have to back this up. The stock market was in decline for the last 4-5 MONTHS of Clinton's second term before Bush was even sworn in.

I find it hard to believe anyone would actually consider Carter as a greater evil than the current president.

No one said Carter was evil. They said he was inept and probably the worst President we have had. I have happen to agree that Carter was inept and a very bad President. He is definatly not evil and neither is the current President.

The worst can't be the popular choices like Clinton, Nixon, or Carter. Clinton balanced the budget and made the US even more powerful. People say he's the worst because of one lady. Nixon helped our relations from China go from horrible to good. He also took us out of Vietnam and had a cease fire going on there. Of course, North vietnam broke the cease fire and Congress refused to let us do anything about it. He's hated because of a little incident in a hotel, in which his involvement was unproven. Carter. Let's see. He was a man of peace. He wasn't one to send our entire military into a small country. He wanted peace. He helped to try to settle the Isreal-palestine dispute. He lost because of the Iranian hostage incident. One mistake caused people to consider him to be worse than Satan. One mistake. He should have sent some soldiers over there. Maybe the Iranians were trying to get Reagan elected? After all, they did let the hostages go after Reagan became president in January of 1981. Come on. Some of you believe that FDR purposely let Japan attack us. He didn't know where they would strike. He just knew that it was somewhere in the Pacific. Of course, there's the issue of if he knew about a planned Japanese attack in the first place.

Carter was a sleazy piece of shit with a double standard foreign policy that condemned human rights violations in anticommunist nations, but ignored and even condoned human rights violations in communist nations. He should be tried by Rhodesians, Nicaraguans, and Iranians, and then dragged into the street and shot like the rabid dog he is.

I am a democrat and I'm saying the worst president ever was andrew jackson he was responsible for the trail of tears against the indians. They did nothing to him. I dont care if jackson was a democrat he should have run under the god damn facist party.

The Japanese only attacked because FDR provoked them. See my list of sources in the "Best American President," thread. And as I said before, we should have let the Nazis and Soviets wipe each other out.

Um, turn off the Pearl Harbor DVD and go open a history book.

The Japanese only attacked because FDR provoked them. See my list of sources in the "Best American President," thread. And as I said before, we should have let the Nazis and Soviets wipe each other out.
FDR only 'provoked' the japs (I'll assume you're talking about the blockades and embargos on oil) because the Japanese started a genocidal campaign against the Chinese. Don't you dare even try and say that the Japanese were justified in what they did.

Um, turn off the Pearl Harbor DVD and go open a history book.

Um, look at my long list of sources in the Best President thread, and open a history book yourself.

Carter did negotiate the Camp David Accords, the greatest American foreign policy feat in the Middle East since the creation of Israel.

I'd say the worst is either Nixon (for obvious reasons) or Reagan.

Nixon ended the Viet Nam war and Reagan brought down the Soviet Union. Carter did nothing about the Iran hostage crisis.

FDR only 'provoked' the japs (I'll assume you're talking about the blockades and embargos on oil) because the Japanese started a genocidal campaign against the Chinese. Don't you dare even try and say that the Japanese were justified in what they did.

I never said they were. But what happened in Asia was none of our business, nor was what happened in Europe. It's not our job to police the world.

But, to be fair, I'll have to say Ronald Reagan - definitely the most outright evil US president.
"To be fair". HAHAHAHAH!!! Of course an avowed communist would hate Reagan. :D

I never said they were. But what happened in Asia was none of our business, nor was what happened in Europe. It's not our job to police the world.
So you're against embargos too? We weren't policing, we were saying that we don't want to trade with you if you're doing this. No force, just go and find someone else to trade with.

GWB might not be the worst, but he's high on the short list.
But if he was assassinated :sniper: I'd say Cheney would rocket to the top of the list.

GHRB would show up on the list too.

I'd go with Nixon - anytime the nation asks you to leave because they can't wait the full four years - you know you really suck.

"To be fair". HAHAHAHAH!!! Of course an avowed communist would hate Reagan. :D

I don't really see why, given how little Reagan was involved in the fall of the Soviet Union (that in itself assumes Communists would retain any sympathy for what was by the end a very unCommunist state). Plus, there's plenty of non-Communists who also hate Reagan.

Um, turn off the Pearl Harbor DVD and go open a history book.

Day of Deceit: The Truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor by Robert B. Stinnett

The New Dealer's War by Thomas Fleming

Infamy: Pearl Harbor and Its Aftermath by John Toland

And I Was There by Rear Admiral Edward T. Layton

A Man Called Intrepid by William Stevenson

The Final Secret of Pearl Harbor by Rear Admiral Robert O. Theobald

Perpetual War For Perpetual Peace by Harry Elmer Barnes

Back Door to War, The Roosevelt Foreign Policy, 1933-1941 by Charles Callan Tansill

Please post whatever documentation you think you have to back this up. The stock market was in decline for the last 4-5 MONTHS of Clinton's second term before Bush was even sworn in.
Actually, the stock market decline started NINE months before Clinton left office. Technically, it wasn't his fault...it was the market's fault and idiot dot.com daytraders that did it. Clinton's only mark on the economy as that he did relatively nothing to help it or kill it.

No one said Carter was evil. They said he was inept and probably the worst President we have had. I have happen to agree that Carter was inept and a very bad President. He is definatly not evil and neither is the current President.

I didn't say Carter was evil... I questioned whether he was 'a greater evil' than the current president.... not actually saying he was 'evil'.

Carter was pretty inept... but again, how is that president any worse than the current president?

At least Carter didn't lie about any wars.

I'm surprised no one has mentioned Warren Harding. His was literally the most corrupt administration in US history. Grant's was a close second. The rest of this debate is more partisan than empirical, but I'd put those two at the top of the list.

THAT makes him the worst President ever???

lol. It was half a joke. But in half-hearted defence, it further divided the U.S. and Britain, and set us back many years. We could have stepped onto the world economic stage much sooner without that short-sighted "Polish" act (don't mess with us, or we'll beat ourselves up).

I'm surprised no one has mentioned Warren Harding. His was literally the most corrupt administration in US history. Grant's was a close second. The rest of this debate is more partisan than empirical, but I'd put those two at the top of the list.

Grant was probably more corrupt. Other than Ngo Dinh Diem, Grant was probably one of the biggest nepotists in history.

On this issue of World War 2.

This is assuming America stays neutral until directly attacked

I don’t think the Nazis and the Soviets would have wiped each other out.

Everyone here is doubtlessly aware that the Americans weren’t the only one working on an atomic weapons program. The Nazis were working furiously on it, and would have developed it, without the intervention of American OSS and British SAS strikes, and Germany having to spend more resources fighting multiple enemies. Russia would, most likely, not have developed the weapon in time.

And then Germany, being the genocidal maniacs they were at the time, would have turned Stalingrad into a burning, radioactive crater, along with Moscow, and any other pocket of resistance in Russia, since no one had any clue how ecological destructive these weapons were.

Hitler would have continued, and met with his Japanese allies. They would have continued to press the attack on America.

Lets not forget about relentless Japan, who would have carried the attack to Pearl Harbor, seized it, and carried the attack forward to the coast of California. If we held them off there…they would have come again. Or maybe they would have gone for Alaska, and come through Canada, I don’t really profess to know the exact Japanese battle plans, but, I am sure that they would have come, again and again.

Meanwhile, Hitler finishes off Britain, and comes for us, as well, maybe from the east, or maybe from the west, with the Japanese, once again, I don’t know. Hell, maybe he’d have convened Argentina to join him, and Spain, and they’d have come through Mexico together, one big homicidal fascist family.

And here we are, America, land of the free, and home of the brave. Except, we’re on the defensive, and almost every opportunity for a counter offensive is gone. The entire world has fallen, and we stand alone.Germany will win, and we shall fall.

Never forget people, RB, pay particular attention to this. No one EVER wins a war by defense alone. You have to get out there take your objectives, and take the war to your enemy, to his country, to the front porch of his very home, or you will fail

America does not have to be the worlds policemen, granted. However, one nation will always step up to the plate, for the plate of “world police” constitutes power, and all nations want power. If America does not police the world, someone will. Would you prefer it had been the Soviet Union? Or would you prefer now, that China, or Russia, or France or England?

America does not have to police the world, but she must defend her interests, and sometimes those interests lie outside of her borders. To keep the homeland safe, one must do the aforementioned. Take the fight TO the enemy, not wait for them to come to us.

I do believe it was the book Starship Troopers which said “No Department of Defense ever one a war.”

Attached note: Damn people! I started typing this on page 3....and I type fast! :)

[/hijack]

I don't think there's a ONE worst, but a list might be in order:

1) James Buchanan -- basically sat by and did absolutely nothing to prevent Southern secession and the Civil War.

2) Franklin Pierce -- never stood a chance once his son (railroad bridge accident) and wife (can't remember) were taken from him. Empty shell.

3) Woodrow Wilson -- Openly racist, fucked up US involvement in WWI and really fucked up by setting the stage for WWII with the Treaty of Versailles. Then there's the whole League of Nations fiasco.

4) Herbert Hoover -- Economically incompetent, violently put down the Bonus Army riots (vets of WWI who merely wanted what the government had promised them).

5) William McKinley -- Spanish-American War...gave in to yellow journalism-fired public mob mentality. Royally messed up relations with China, forcing trade concessions and essentially fueling the Boxer Rebellion.

Honorable Mention: Andrew Johnson, U.S. Grant, John F. Kennedy, George W. Bush, and Zachary Taylor/Millard Fillmore.

THAT makes him the worst President ever???

Uh....it was a joke. A JOKE.

I don't think there's a ONE worst, but a list might be in order:

1) James Buchanan -- basically sat by and did absolutely nothing to prevent Southern secession and the Civil War.

The hell's wrong with that? Would you prefer that he invaded, like Lincoln did?

The Japanese only attacked because FDR provoked them. See my list of sources in the "Best American President," thread. And as I said before, we should have let the Nazis and Soviets wipe each other out.

I agree with the part about letting the Soviets and Nazis wipe each other out. The U.S. and Britain should have never allied with Stalin which led to selling out eastern Europe. F.D.R. did antagonize the Japanese into viewing the United States as a threat, but in that case F.D.R. took reasonable action to deal with Japanese territorial ambitions and I don't think anyone would have done differently.
Let's not forget one of the most consequential, but forgotten presidents of all time: James K. Polk. Without his trumping up reasons to declare war against Mexico and completely kicking their asses the United States would be about half the size it is today. He wasn't the first or last imperialist American president and I thank him for it. Every American needs to read "Colossus" by Niall Ferguson so we can get over this self-righteous denial and get serious about running our empire.

I don't really see why, given how little Reagan was involved in the fall of the Soviet Union (that in itself assumes Communists would retain any sympathy for what was by the end a very unCommunist state). Plus, there's plenty of non-Communists who also hate Reagan.
The SU's economy and infrastructure were shit to start with. Reagan saw this and put us into an arms race that he knew we would win and knew would finally collapse the SU's already pathetic economy. His policies and the SU's greed for power were the direct causes for their collapse.

But, hey, Reagan didn't really do anything. :rolleyes:

Everyone here is doubtlessly aware that the Americans weren’t the only one working on an atomic weapons program. The Nazis were working furiously on it, and would have developed it, without the intervention of American OSS and British SAS strikes, and Germany having to spend more resources fighting multiple enemies.

The real reason Nazi Germany didn't develop it first is because of their persecution of Jews; many of the developers of the atom bomb were Jews who had fled Nazi persecution.

Oh yes, you can trust a book that could have been written by a nutcase to be comletely factual and 100% accurate. I'd much rather trust Mr. guynobodyknows than the history channel. FDR did some things against a dangerous military state that thinks of nothing, but conquest. If we did nothing, Southeast Asia and Australia would be renamed Japan. Of course, some US territories would be next on their list. Plus, there's the new deal going for FDR.

I would have to say it would be a toss-up between Herbert Hoover, Lyndon B. Johnson, and Jimmy Carter.

Actually, the stock market decline started NINE months before Clinton left office. Technically, it wasn't his fault...it was the market's fault and idiot dot.com daytraders that did it. Clinton's only mark on the economy as that he did relatively nothing to help it or kill it.
No, try 3 months into his first term.


Bush inaugerated: January 18, 2001
Date at which the recession is thought to have begun: March, 2001.

(Source: NBER)

However, this is pointless, and really doesn't matter. All the fingerpointing in the world really doesn't change the fact that presidents can't effect the economy to stave off a recession/depression completely.

1) James Buchanan -- basically sat by and did absolutely nothing to prevent Southern secession and the Civil War.
He's nothing compared to his successor, Lincoln.

Clinton balanced the budget and made the US even more powerful.

Clinton did not balance the budget. It was the Republican Congress that forced a balanced budget.

Oh yes, you can trust a book that could have been written by a nutcase to be comletely factual and 100% accurate. I'd much rather trust Mr. guynobodyknows than the history channel. FDR did some things against a dangerous military state that thinks of nothing, but conquest. If we did nothing, Southeast Asia and Australia would be renamed Japan. Of course, some US territories would be next on their list. Plus, there's the new deal going for FDR.

There are these little things in the books I named called "footnotes." And "bibliographies." But perhaps you've never heard of them.

I don't know what you guys have against Lincoln. Lincoln is the second greatest president this country has ever had. Anybody who knocks the man with whom responsibility lies for truly uniting the union, will be slapped. true, he fucked around with civil rights for a while, but that's what happens during civil wars. he's not anywhere near the worst when it comes to that (in the world, we've only had one civil war time leader).

The current situation is entirely jimmy carter's fault, on account of the camp david accords.

but the worst president, hands down, is warren gamaliel harding, of whom it was often said that his greatest qualification for office was that he looked like a president. He gave the office of the president more powers (including running the budget...a task formerly given to congress.) it is his fault that our good friend georgie boy gets to rape the shit out of the budget every year. other than that, he had an especially scandal ridden presidency (although the worst in that department is U.S. Grant), and didn't do shit elsewhere.

Nixon ended the Viet Nam war and Reagan brought down the Soviet Union. Carter did nothing about the Iran hostage crisis.

Rubbish. Internal politics and economy brought down the Soviet Union. Reagan just happened to be the American president while some of it was happening...

Clinton did not balance the budget. It was the Republican Congress that forced a balanced budget.

And they seem to have forgotten how to do that....

I don't really see why, given how little Reagan was involved in the fall of the Soviet Union (that in itself assumes Communists would retain any sympathy for what was by the end a very unCommunist state). Plus, there's plenty of non-Communists who also hate Reagan.
I don't hate Reagan for his (mostly insignificant) role in the fall of the USSR. I hate him for his death squads in Latin America that killed anyone who looked slightly red.

I didn't say Carter was evil... I questioned whether he was 'a greater evil' than the current president.... not actually saying he was 'evil'.

Carter was pretty inept... but again, how is that president any worse than the current president?

At least Carter didn't lie about any wars.

Neither did Bush. Seems a lot of governments thought Saddam had WMD.

However, this is pointless, and really doesn't matter. All the fingerpointing in the world really doesn't change the fact that presidents can't effect the economy to stave off a recession/depression completely.
That was more or less my point. :)

Polk had the worst presidency becouse of his policy on the Mexican-American war. He waged war on Mexico becouse they refused to sell Cali to us.

Rubbish. Internal politics and economy brought down the Soviet Union. Reagan just happened to be the American president while some of it was happening...


Bingo. If a Ed The Sock was prez when the USSR fell apart, he'd be getting the credit.

ps - are you quoting Aliens III or something else...

Neither did Bush. Seems a lot of governments thought Saddam had WMD.

We went to war b/c Saddam had WMD. Now it's the "War for Iraqi Freedom". Sounds like a lie to me.

The Worst Presidents, in no particular order

Lyndon Johnson - A mess of forign and domestic policy.
Herbert Hoover - The Depression wasn't his fault, but he still shrugged it off.
Jimmy Carter - Nothing needs to be said.
Andrew Jackson - Mass deportation of Cherokee indians, stupid policies.
Ulysses S. Grant - Campaign of massacaring the Indians.
William McKinley - Turned the Spanish-American war from Cuban liberation into America's one true try at becoming an empire... what an ass.

FDR gets an honerable mention... he did a lot of good, but he also greatly increased the power of the position of President, not a good thing by any means.

Bush Sr. does as well, for bending to the will of morons by not eliminating Saddam Hussein in 1991.

The Best, in no particular order
Ronald Reagan - took a hard line with soviets after a decade of detente. He WAS partially responsible for ending the cold war, along with Gorby, Pope JPII, and some other characters. YES he did have a role no matter how much his critics try to say otherwise.

Harry Truman - Brought the economy out of it's post war slump. Managed his part in Korea well. At the end of WWII, he made what may have been the most difficult decision a President has EVER made, and made it correctly.

Abraham Lincoln - Yes, he greatly stretched his bounds, but if he did not, America would have been a far worse country today. And North and South could never have remained peaceful for long - Lincoln may have saved innumerable more lives than the civil war took.

FDR - Helping the US out of the depression. Yeah I gave him an honerable mention for worst too, so what.

Teddy Roosevelt - Set up preservation of the frontier, pushed for new Laws governing business/workers rights. I find that important because I follow Adam Smith's economics, and even he reminds us that there needs to be some oversight.

Thomas Jefferson - The father of American Politics, and for setting america on the path Westward with the Louisiana Purchase, and expeditions starting with Lewis & Clark.

James K. Polk - Continued what Jefferson Started by winning Texas, the South West and California from Mexico (Had his envoy to Mexico not screwed up, we probably would of gotten the whole damn country... which would probably have been better for everone in the long run), and winning the rights to Oregon Country, rest of the North West.

America owes much of what it is to those last three - Polk never gets recognition, but he may have been the most important.

I hate to ask a stupid question, but what did Clinton do??? :confused:

A few words and Reagan is credited with bringing down the USSR. It couldn't have been the fact that the Soviet Union was messed up in the first place or that many others have helped, like the late pope John Paul II's efforts to liberate Poland from Soviet tyranny or Nixon's building of healthy relations with China. It was all Reagan's doing because people say so.

I agree with the part about letting the Soviets and Nazis wipe each other out.
So you see no problem with standing by and watching three hundred million innocent people die horrible, violent, painful deaths?

No, try 3 months into his first term.


Bush inaugerated: January 18, 2001
Date at which the recession is thought to have begun: March, 2001.[/QUOTE]

That date is really suspicious, especially when that site notes that both industrial production and employment start their decline months prior to Bush taking office.

However, this is pointless, and really doesn't matter. All the fingerpointing in the world really doesn't change the fact that presidents can't effect the economy to stave off a recession/depression completely.

Finally, someone halfway intelligent on this site! CSW, I want to have your baby! Even though I can't! I don't think...!

Rubbish. Internal politics and economy brought down the Soviet Union. Reagan just happened to be the American president while some of it was happening...
Bullshit. Yes, the SU's economy and politics were crap and would have eventually collapsed on their own, but Reagan's arms race policies actively hastened their demise. Saying Reagan had nothing to do with it is intellectually dishonest.

And they seem to have forgotten how to do that....

Yes. :(

No, try 3 months into his first term.


Bush inaugerated: January 18, 2001
Date at which the recession is thought to have begun: March, 2001.

(Source: NBER)

However, this is pointless, and really doesn't matter. All the fingerpointing in the world really doesn't change the fact that presidents can't effect the economy to stave off a recession/depression completely.

Er...you might want to look at this:
http://data.moneycentral.msn.com/scripts/chrtsrv.dll?Symbol=%24INDU&C1=2&C2=&C5=1&C6=1999&C7=1&C8=2005&C9=0&CA=1&CC=1&CE=0&D3=0&D5=0&EFR=236&EFG=246&EFB=254&E1=0

Now, THAT I agree with you.

So you see no problem with standing by and watching three hundred million innocent people die horrible, violent, painful deaths?

I love the amazing double standards some people have. It's okay to intervene when Nazis and fascists kill people, but when communists kill people, it's "none of our business" (like in Vietnam), or when dictators gas thousands of their own people. Intervening in other countries' quarrels is never justified, unless it directly involves us.

Neither did Bush. Seems a lot of governments thought Saddam had WMD.

Curious, isn't it? I just said that 'at least Carter didn't lie about a war'... and you immediately made the connection to Bush.... although I didn't even mention him in that context.

You know he lied, hence, the jump of logic.

Ms Rice admitted that Bush had told her he was going to have to 'do something about Iraq' even before he was elected.

Don't buy into the WMD story, don't buy into the 9/11 story, don't buy into the Kurdish persecution story. Bush was going to Iraq, one way or another.

Just because his fabricated evidence MAY have convinced some others.. that doesn't make it any more 'genuine', or him any more 'honest' about it.

The hell's wrong with that? Would you prefer that he invaded, like Lincoln did?

You're a loudmouth demagogue, but okay, I'll bite.

Yes! I would have preferred that Buchanan or Taylor/Fillmore had done ANYthing to reconcile that rift. Lincoln did what he had to do, just like W is doing now. I intensely dislike W, but I can't fault him for his military action in Afghanistan, and for better or worse, Iraq. He had to do SOMEthing, and something big, to show that the US wasn't going to be intimidated. Just like Lincoln -- he was threatened with having the nation bifurcated and the economy hacked off at the knees. Compromises (such as Missouri and 1850) were only going to prolong the matter. Overall, Lincoln was a federalist who believed in the union as a whole. Much like W believes in democracy FOR the whole (world). Neither can be faulted for their ideas. Execution, naturally, can be picked apart, but when you're doing something nobody's ever had to do before, there's gonna be mistakes.

That's why an even-handed and rational account of a president's ENTIRE term is required to promote or demote him.

But something tells me (I dunno, it could be your own posts) that "rational" and "even-handed" aren't among your traits.

Clinton:
Good:
budget
Europen crises.
bad:
a low(I mean LOW!!!!!) attack by a REpublican party turned one case of adultery into something that seems far worse than genocide or nuclear holocaust. They turned a private matter into a major scandel. Even Hilary managed to forgive him for a matter that was none of our business. Couldn't the republicans wait a few more years?

Please post whatever documentation you think you have to back this up. The stock market was in decline for the last 4-5 MONTHS of Clinton's second term before Bush was even sworn in.

I never said I liked Clinton either. He was not my favorite as you SEEM to think. I'm not a damned Democrat. And no matter what you say, Bush will stay on my list. The stock market continued to go down. That's what matters. Not that the last months of Clinton's term were the same. Besides, 2 of those months it may have been due to the world seeing that the idiot got in office.

bush Jr. is pretty damn bad. atleast Bush Sr. withdrew the troops but he forgot to kill Saddam. If anyone was smart they would send in 1 marine sniper and kill Saddam with 1 bullet :sniper:. It is really that easy. Plus the cost of that compared to the war now is nothing, our government is really sad. I am leaving this country as soon as possible because of Bush, he screwed us all.

Bullshit. Yes, the SU's economy and politics were crap and would have eventually collapsed on their own, but Reagan's arms race policies actively hastened their demise. Saying Reagan had nothing to do with it is intellectually dishonest.
Well, the Soviet Union's cause of death was quite clearly suicide. Their economy was stagnating in the late 70's and early 80's. Seeing this as a major problem, Gorbachev came along with a brilliant plan for market-oriented reforms... which utterly ruined the Soviet economy, sending it tumbling down into oblivion.

Reagan's arms race was a factor, of course, but the Soviets could have reasonably ignored it. Once you have the power to destroy the Earth once, why should you care if your enemy has the power to destroy the Earth 10 times over?

You're a loudmouth demagogue, but okay, I'll bite.

Yes! I would have preferred that Buchanan or Taylor/Fillmore had done ANYthing to reconcile that rift. Lincoln did what he had to do, just like W is doing now. I intensely dislike W, but I can't fault him for his military action in Afghanistan, and for better or worse, Iraq. He had to do SOMEthing, and something big, to show that the US wasn't going to be intimidated. Just like Lincoln -- he was threatened with having the nation bifurcated and the economy hacked off at the knees. Compromises (such as Missouri and 1850) were only going to prolong the matter. Overall, Lincoln was a federalist who believed in the union as a whole. Much like W believes in democracy FOR the whole (world). Neither can be faulted for their ideas. Execution, naturally, can be picked apart, but when you're doing something nobody's ever had to do before, there's gonna be mistakes.

That's why an even-handed and rational account of a president's ENTIRE term is required to promote or demote him.

But something tells me (I dunno, it could be your own posts) that "rational" and "even-handed" aren't among your traits.

Bullshit. Lincoln wasn't a federalist. He wanted a unitary system where states had virtually no power at all.

Day of Deceit: The Truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor by Robert B. Stinnett

The New Dealer's War by Thomas Fleming

Infamy: Pearl Harbor and Its Aftermath by John Toland

And I Was There by Rear Admiral Edward T. Layton

A Man Called Intrepid by William Stevenson

The Final Secret of Pearl Harbor by Rear Admiral Robert O. Theobald

Perpetual War For Perpetual Peace by Harry Elmer Barnes

Back Door to War, The Roosevelt Foreign Policy, 1933-1941 by Charles Callan Tansill

It's a nice list of books. Ayep.

Look, you may have read these, you may not have. I don't care either way. The idea that FDR goaded the Japanese into attacking is revisionist at best.

Curious, isn't it? I just said that 'at least Carter didn't lie about a war'... and you immediately made the connection to Bush.... although I didn't even mention him in that context.

You know he lied, hence, the jump of logic.
No, the jump of logic comes from people like you hollerring "BUSH LIED! PEOPLE DIED!" nine hundred million times until the phrase is etched into our collective cerebral cortex.

On this issue of World War 2.

This is assuming America stays neutral until directly attacked

I don’t think the Nazis and the Soviets would have wiped each other out.

And then Germany, being the genocidal maniacs they were at the time, would have turned Stalingrad into a burning, radioactive crater, along with Moscow, and any other pocket of resistance in Russia, since no one had any clue how ecological destructive these weapons were.

Hitler would have continued, and met with his Japanese allies. They would have continued to press the attack on America.

Lets not forget about relentless Japan, who would have carried the attack to Pearl Harbor, seized it, and carried the attack forward to the coast of California. If we held them off there…they would have come again. Or maybe they would have gone for Alaska, and come through Canada, I don’t really profess to know the exact Japanese battle plans, but, I am sure that they would have come, again and again.

Meanwhile, Hitler finishes off Britain, and comes for us, as well, maybe from the east, or maybe from the west, with the Japanese, once again, I don’t know. Hell, maybe he’d have convened Argentina to join him, and Spain, and they’d have come through Mexico together, one big homicidal fascist family.



The Nazi's would not have nuked Stalingrad. Too much oil in the area. Hitler's divisions were getting stuck because of lack of oil. A nuke would have burned the entire area and the flames would prolly have carried onto the oil fields burning them up. The Japs were prepping a major campaign in the souther pacific to capture oil fields when they launched the attack on pearl harbor. Oi l is what made all the difference in this war. As for US intervention. If we did not even fight and only traded with the Soviets they would have over ran the Nazis. As for Spain joining up with Hitler...couldn't happen. Spain had just gotten off a very devastating civil war and I doubt they would have been able to do anythign to help either side. No south american country could have made a difference in the war. Let's face it, there as well off as Africa. But it is kind of interesting that all major powers have been in the Northern Hemisphere. All through out time too. Only major southern hemisphere empire would be the Incan.

Anyways, Soviets would have won. Hitler wasn't going to invade England until he achieved air superiority which he never did. US intervention was a more of a catalyst then anything else.

Besides for being the main founding father, what else did George Washington do well? He wasn't a good general, winning only a few of the battles, and as for his presedency...can anyone tell me of one thing he did? Note: Constitution and Bill of Rights came before the first president.

Intervening in other countries' quarrels is never justified, unless it directly involves us.

Fair enough point. I don't think the US's involvement in Vietnam was justified, but I can't say the same for the Second World War.

This will obviously create a slew of contentious and irrelevant or poorly defended arguments, so I'm not going to waste time positing an argument right now. I would be interested, Roach-Busters, in hearing your case for how American involvement in WWII was unjustified, irrelevant, wrong, etc. You put good arguments out there, so I'd like to hear it.

There have been a ton of bad presidents. Grant, Nixon, Clinton, LBJ -- but, in my opinion, the absolute worst was Jimmy Carter. Completely inept at foreign policy and a detriment to domestic policy, the guy was a loser all the way around. What's even worse is that he continues to be a thorn in the side of the US. Hell, the only good thing he's done is his work with Habitat for Humanity.

NOTE: I just know there will be a slew of kneejerk idiots hollering "GEORGE BUSH IS SATAN!" in this thread. Get a grip. He's definitely not the best president we've ever had, but he's far from the worst.


I disagree. Corperate kickbacks, Abu Ghariab, no Osama, "piss off the entire rest of the world" forign policy...

Yeah, Dubya's the worst.

Fair enough point. I don't think the US's involvement in Vietnam was justified, but I can't say the same for the Second World War.

This will obviously create a slew of contentious and irrelevant or poorly defended arguments, so I'm not going to waste time positing an argument right now. I would be interested, Roach-Busters, in hearing your case for how American involvement in WWII was unjustified, irrelevant, wrong, etc. You put good arguments out there, so I'd like to hear it.

It's not our job to police the world.

I never said I liked Clinton either. He was not my favorite as you SEEM to think. I'm not a damned Democrat. And no matter what you say, Bush will stay on my list. The stock market continued to go down. That's what matters. Not that the last months of Clinton's term were the same. Besides, 2 of those months it may have been due to the world seeing that the idiot got in office.

Er... I didn't say anything about Clinton, now did I? ;)

Yeah, losing several thousand people when people fly planes into finanical centers *might JUST* effect the economy. :rolleyes:

Pre-emptive judging a book by a cover? Riiiiight.

Bullshit. Yes, the SU's economy and politics were crap and would have eventually collapsed on their own, but Reagan's arms race policies actively hastened their demise. Saying Reagan had nothing to do with it is intellectually dishonest.

I didn't say he had 'nothing' to do with it... he WAS the president for a while... but the Soviet Union was falling apart from the moment Stalin took power.

In fact, to assert a definitive link, would be intellectually dishonest. A more 'intellectually honest' approach, would be to remain sceptical as to what effect, if any, Reagan had on the procedings.

To be honest, one too many bad winters is a more likely death knell for the USSR, than the brinkmanship of a foreign potentate.

Reagan's arms race was a factor, of course, but the Soviets could have reasonably ignored it.
The point is: they didn't ignore it. They played right into Reagan's plan.

I never give Reagan full credit for ending the cold war.
But we were basically bending to the soviets will throughout the 1970's. Remember detente??? If we had not resumed our aggressive stance against communism, not re-applied pressure, I doubt the internal problems would have been enough of a problem

Though I think I should give an Honerable mention in the way of Best President to Nixon. What he did with China is remarkable... it's a shame he dipped his hand into the watergate scandal. If he had exposed the treachery within his party himself, and swore to punish those responsible, I think the maerican people would of loved him for it, and he'd probably have a much brighter legacy.

I love the amazing double standards some people have. It's okay to intervene when Nazis and fascists kill people, but when communists kill people, it's "none of our business" (like in Vietnam)
You killed far more people in Vietnam than the communists did. Not to mention that you started the war in the first place by refusing to hold elections because you knew the communists would have won.

...or when dictators gas thousands of their own people. Intervening in other countries' quarrels is never justified, unless it directly involves us.
Did you see me complaining about the war in Iraq? Don't stereotype left-wingers. Removing Saddam from power was most certainly a good thing. I disagree with the conduct of the war, but I agree with the war in principle.

what are you talking about? As I said in my last post, Stalin couldn't have won. Anyway, if we had not joined, one side or the other would have won complete control. This would have left us in an even worse situation.
1. I believe that in the end, the Soviets could have won through sheer manpower. That, combined with the Germans' unpreparedness for a winter war would have paved a Soviet victory.
2. Yes. That is exactly what I said. A Soviet or Nazi controlled Europe would have not been a pretty sight.

It's not our job to police the world.

I don't agree with you on most of the issues you've posted today, but I'm pretty impressed with your ability to marshal facts or at least point to specifics in order to back up your arguments.

This isn't as convincing or interesting a case as I'd hoped you'd make. Oh well...

No president deserves full credit for anything because they don't do it all alone.

I disagree. Corperate kickbacks, Abu Ghariab, no Osama, "piss off the entire rest of the world" forign policy...

Yeah, Dubya's the worst.

Not to mention the fact that Bush has active business concerns with the ibn Ladin family... who 'just happen' to have a son that he 'just happens' to not be able to find.

(Also - the only flight out of the US the day after 9/11 was that very same 'terrorist sponsor' family.... leaving New York after a morning business meeting with a certain member of the US government....)

Dishonesty personified.

Instead of intervening militarily during World War II, we should have supported the anti-Hitler resistance and encouraged a coup d'etat. As for Japan, we should have worked with the moderate prime minister who preceded Tojo, rather than doing everything we could to provoke the Japanese and antagonize them.

bush Jr. is pretty damn bad. atleast Bush Sr. withdrew the troops but he forgot to kill Saddam. If anyone was smart they would send in 1 marine sniper and kill Saddam with 1 bullet :sniper:. It is really that easy. Plus the cost of that compared to the war now is nothing, our government is really sad. I am leaving this country as soon as possible because of Bush, he screwed us all.

Yeah, if only it was that easy. Stick to the video games champ, your idea was NEVER an option.

It would have done no good at all. One of his lieutenants, or god forbid one of his sons (they made daddy look like an angel... I celebrated the US military sending them to hell) would have stepped up.

It's not our job to police the world.
But I disagree. We are currently the world's only superpower. We are the only nation that has the power to bring liberty to the oppressed masses of the earth. Ours is the most powerful military machine on earth. It would be wrong and shameful not to use that power, before it becomes eclipsed by the Chinese.

No president deserves full credit for anything because they don't do it all alone.
Exactly, but politics are stupid that way. *sigh*

Not to mention the fact that Bush has active business concerns with the ibn Ladin family... who 'just happen' to have a son that he 'just happens' to not be able to find.

(Also - the only flight out of the US the day after 9/11 was that very same 'terrorist sponsor' family.... leaving New York after a morning business meeting with a certain member of the US government....)

Dishonesty personified.


Educate yourself before you talk like an idiot.

I love the amazing double standards some people have. It's okay to intervene when Nazis and fascists kill people, but when communists kill people, it's "none of our business" (like in Vietnam), or when dictators gas thousands of their own people. Intervening in other countries' quarrels is never justified, unless it directly involves us.

Nazis and Fascists were crossing borders and killing people just for being non-Aryan (which, if you look that term up, basically includes a lot of dark-skinned folks, but that's another thread). Vietnam was so much more complicated than that, it's insane. Colonial French lose control when fighting against those who would liberate themselves from colonial rule...and it gets worse from there.

Again, even-handed and rational don't seem to be part of your arsenal. Pity, really. Your enthusiasm and fire, backed with facts and tempered with reality would be quite formidable.

Er... I didn't say anything about Clinton, now did I? ;)

Yeah, losing several thousand people when people fly planes into finanical centers *might JUST* effect the economy. :rolleyes:

Pre-emptive judging a book by a cover? Riiiiight.

Um listen. The planes hit the towers like 8 months after he came into office. The stock market was going down still.

Now you are just trying to piss me off. I made a statement. It's a frackin' opinion poll. I can have my own opinions lame-o.

Not to mention the fact that Bush has active business concerns with the ibn Ladin family... who 'just happen' to have a son that he 'just happens' to not be able to find.

(Also - the only flight out of the US the day after 9/11 was that very same 'terrorist sponsor' family.... leaving New York after a morning business meeting with a certain member of the US government....)

Dishonesty personified.

Oh no not more from that moron Michael Moore. I'll give you a little hint, he played you for a lot of money. He's a multimillionaire because he makes movies.
Here is a good site that tears apart bowling for columbine. http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

You killed far more people in Vietnam than the communists did. Not to mention that you started the war in the first place by refusing to hold elections because you knew the communists would have won.

Of course they would have won. Most people would have been too afraid not to vote for a man who buried political opponents alive in fields, with only their heads sticking above ground, and then drove harrows across the fields, shredding their heads apart. Communists never have much trouble winning elections. They use all sorts of tactics: rigging (read Rape of Poland by Stanislaw Mikolajczyk, And Not a Shot is Fired by Jan Kovac, and Politics By Other Means by Morgan Norval); killing off the opposition, etc.

Not to mention the fact that Bush has active business concerns with the ibn Ladin family... who 'just happen' to have a son that he 'just happens' to not be able to find.

(Also - the only flight out of the US the day after 9/11 was that very same 'terrorist sponsor' family.... leaving New York after a morning business meeting with a certain member of the US government....)

Dishonesty personified.
Ah yes. Another Moore-ite. These "business" concerns were actually that both families invested in a gigantic global investment fund. But so did George Soros, so did Disney, so did a gazillion other people. Not to mention the fact that the Bin Laden family is composed of hundreds of members (happens when you have dozens of wives), and has expelled Osama. Also, your second fact is blatantly wrong.

No, the jump of logic comes from people like you hollerring "BUSH LIED! PEOPLE DIED!" nine hundred million times until the phrase is etched into our collective cerebral cortex.

Which is a tactic that the Republicans NEVER use. :rolleyes:

If having money in the same financial firm is having business ties, then Michael Moore is in bed with the Saudi's too.

Loew's Theaters, the number one distributor of F9-11 is run by the Carlyle group.

Take your conspiracy theory and jam it.

Which is a tactic that the Republicans NEVER use. :rolleyes:

Haha, fair enough. But you're still the ones doing it, right now.

Instead of intervening militarily during World War II, we should have supported the anti-Hitler resistance and encouraged a coup d'etat. As for Japan, we should have worked with the moderate prime minister who preceded Tojo, rather than doing everything we could to provoke the Japanese and antagonize them.

Fair enough point regarding Japan. I'll table it for now. How do you account for the fact that Germany declared war on the United States, not the other way around? Should the US have continued "supporting the anti-Hitler resistance and encouraging a coup d'etat" against a leader who was, until 1944, extremely powerful and popular, even when that leader's country was at war with it?

Nazis and Fascists were crossing borders and killing people just for being non-Aryan (which, if you look that term up, basically includes a lot of dark-skinned folks, but that's another thread). Vietnam was so much more complicated than that, it's insane. Colonial French lose control when fighting against those who would liberate themselves from colonial rule...and it gets worse from there.

Again, even-handed and rational don't seem to be part of your arsenal. Pity, really. Your enthusiasm and fire, backed with facts and tempered with reality would be quite formidable.

In Vietnam, communists killed people just for being Christian, just for showing good will toward the government, just for supporting the U.S., etc.

Fair enough point regarding Japan. I'll table it for now. How do you account for the fact that Germany declared war on the United States, not the other way around? Should the US have continued "supporting the anti-Hitler resistance and encouraging a coup d'etat" against a leader who was, until 1944, extremely powerful and popular, even when that leader's country was at war with it?

Wasn't there already an anti-Hitler resistance at that time?

Educate yourself before you talk like an idiot.

I'll certainly try. How about you pay the same courtesy?

Bullshit. Lincoln wasn't a federalist. He wanted a unitary system where states had virtually no power at all.

Good grief -- did you even READ the rest of that post? How is it you can walk without falling over?

Educate yourself before you talk like an idiot.

You first.

Good grief -- did you even READ the rest of that post? How is it you can walk without falling over?

I read it. Now I suggest you read something- The Real Lincoln by Thomas DiLorenzo, a book with hundreds of footnotes and dozens of sources in its bibliography, most, if not all, of which are pro-Lincoln sources.

I'll certainly try. How about you pay the same courtesy?

Already done. But I can tell you don't have a clue if your spouting that kind of drivel.

Can I ask a quick question for the ex-hippy, liberal protestors out there? What's your problem with Nixon? He was almost solely responsibly for getting us out of Vietnam and improved ties dramatically with your commie buddies in China. I really fail to see what you dislike about him... if the only reason you don't like him is because he tried to protect his political allies who were in the Watergate scandal, it seems kind of stupid.

Ah yes. Another Moore-ite. These "business" concerns were actually that both families invested in a gigantic global investment fund. But so did George Soros, so did Disney, so did a gazillion other people. Not to mention the fact that the Bin Laden family is composed of hundreds of members (happens when you have dozens of wives), and has expelled Osama. Also, your second fact is blatantly wrong.

Curious - the second person in a row to make a 'Moore' connection.

This is the fellow who made the Farenheit 911 film, right?

Just checking.. I believe I have yet to see a single Michael Moore 'film'.

I guess it is easy for you to make assumptions on no evidence...

Curious - the second person in a row to make a 'Moore' connection.

This is the fellow who made the Farenheit 911 film, right?

Just checking.. I believe I have yet to see a single Michael Moore 'film'.

I guess it is easy for you to make assumptions on no evidence...


Birds of a feather... you're still a retard.

I read it. Now I suggest you read something- The Real Lincoln by Thomas DiLorenzo, a book with hundreds of footnotes and dozens of sources in its bibliography, most, if not all, of which are pro-Lincoln sources.
My AP History teacher referred to that same book by DiLorenzo when we got him started on an anti-lincoln rant......

Curious - the second person in a row to make a 'Moore' connection.

This is the fellow who made the Farenheit 911 film, right?

Just checking.. I believe I have yet to see a single Michael Moore 'film'.

I guess it is easy for you to make assumptions on no evidence...

Well, the last assumption that he made about you - that you are an anti-Bush conspiracy theorist - was entirely correct, so maybe he figured he'd go two for two.

Already done. But I can tell you don't have a clue if your spouting that kind of drivel.

It sounds like someone got out of the wrong side of bed, this morning....

Hard to reason with that kind of argument, really.

A)It's not our job to police the world

B)It'd have been better to let the Nazis and Soviets wipe each out. Two birds with one stone, and all that.
A) As the current #1 superpower, yes, it is sometimes. Especially as your people and maybe even your government tend on the whole to be pro-liberty and human rights, it is admirable that your military power be excercised to stop genocide. It's not realistic to always do it, but I think it's a moral obligation where possible.

B) So simplistic. This theory assumes that the two powers were equally able to "wipe each other out" as you so euphemistically put it. I am sure enough that without American help the Nazis would have won, and completely dominated Europe, Africa and Asia (with Japan), and thus risen as a threat to America. The Soviets, while they put up a superb fight, could not have triumphed on their own. Remember, they were fighting the Japanese in the East as well. In the process of the war between Nazis and Soviets, in your theory, it's almost certain that at least 200 million people would have been killed. I fail to see how your conservative ideology is sufficient justification for saving billions from death, destruction and oppression.

hmmmm my least favorite president is andrew jackson... trail of tears and all taht

the president i hate the most is richard nixon... but you probably had to be alive then to understand

the worst president ..... id guess u s grant. so much corruption!

Curious - the second person in a row to make a 'Moore' connection.

This is the fellow who made the Farenheit 911 film, right?

Just checking.. I believe I have yet to see a single Michael Moore 'film'.

I guess it is easy for you to make assumptions on no evidence...
You spouted exactly the same inane arguments he made.

My AP History teacher referred to that same book by DiLorenzo when we got him started on an anti-lincoln rant......

It's a great book. Too slanted in some parts, but exhaustively researched, and a damned good read.

A) As the current #1 superpower, yes, it is sometimes. Especially as your people and maybe even your government tend on the whole to be pro-liberty and human rights, it is admirable that your military power be excercised to stop genocide. It's not realistic to always do it, but I think it's a moral obligation where possible.

B) So simplistic. This theory assumes that the two powers were equally able to "wipe each other out" as you so euphemistically put it. I am sure enough that without American help the Nazis would have won, and completely dominated Europe, Africa and Asia (with Japan), and thus risen as a threat to America. The Soviets, while they put up a superb fight, could not have triumphed on their own. Remember, they were fighting the Japanese in the East as well. In the process of the war between Nazis and Soviets, in your theory, it's almost certain that at least 200 million people would have been killed. I fail to see how your conservative ideology is sufficient justification for saving billions from death, destruction and oppression.

B) Or, here's an option: Let the Nazis and Soviets duke it out, and then finish off the winner.

Bush is up there, but I'd have to say Grant is worst of all time.

I don't see why people hate Clinton so much though, he was one of the better presidents. Thriving economy, good foreign relations, and he even stopped a few nuclear wars. So he fucked around a little, that has nothing to do with his politics.

-edit- then again there's William Henry Harrison. What an idiot.

I hate to disagree, but Clinton ranks high up there. Disgracing America. He may have paid off the national debt, but how? See he used this little thing called a social security surplus, and oh now were seeing the benefits of that move. If he wasn't a chicken we wouldn't be in Iraq right now, because the road to Baghdad was opened, but he was too afraid to make a stand, so were over there now.

But I think the worst was Hoover. What a moron. "It'll fix itself" and "The people like to see that the president is eating well, when the nation is in finicakl trouble."

Well anyway I though I'd also note that people who say Regan, FDR, Lincoln, that's it's pretty ironic that those presidents may seem the worse now, but really saved this nation.

B) Or, here's an option: Let the Nazis and Soviets duke it out, and then finish off the winner.
Which is no less policing then stopping the Japs from attacking the Chinese?

Yes, Cater wasn't great at foreign policy, but if you study the Truman Doctrine and replace the words communism with terrorism...well holy coincidences batman it might ha ve been good ol George talking. How was Clinton(aside from his personal life) worse than Bush Jr? Bush Senior was completely inept at everything. Talk about a waste of a presidency

"I went to Iraq. Before Team America showed up, Iraq was a happy place. They had... flowery meadows, and... rainbow skies... and rivers made of chocolate where the children danced and laughed and played all day long with gumdrop smiles!" - Trey Parker as Sean Penn

Right, my anti War in Iraq buddies?

"I went to Iraq. Before Team America showed up, Iraq was a happy place. They had... flowery meadows, and... rainbow skies... and rivers made of chocolate where the children danced and laughed and played all day long with gumdrop smiles!" - Trey Parker as Sean Penn

Right, my anti War in Iraq buddies?
Oh honestly.

Which is no less policing then stopping the Japs from attacking the Chinese?

As I said, we should have supported the moderate prime minister who preceded Tojo, and helped negotiate a Japanese withdrawal.

Bush is up there, but I'd have to say Grant is worst of all time.

I don't see why people hate Clinton so much though, he was one of the better presidents. Thriving economy, good foreign relations, and he even stopped a few nuclear wars. So he fucked around a little, that has nothing to do with his politics.

-edit- then again there's William Henry Harrison. What an idiot.

Now you see the prosperity of one president will not have instant effects and will carry over to the next presidential term which is why we see the Bush administration under alot of pressure from the former Clinton regime. Clinton's success was based from his formers success in office which would be President Bush senior. So when a current presidents term is going bad dont blame it on them they are cleaning up the past's mistakes. Dont give the president during the prosperous time a good reputation because they didn't earn it

As I said, we should have supported the moderate prime minister who preceded Tojo, and helped negotiate a Japanese withdrawal.
Meanwhile, millions of chinese were being killed and raped. I'll take the embargo, which isn't much policing at all (none, really. Just saying get your goods elsewhere). Besides, the Japs ended up causing Mao to get into power by weakening the Nationalists.

I hate to disagree, but Clinton ranks high up there. Disgracing America. He may have paid off the national debt, but how? See he used this little thing called a social security surplus, and oh now were seeing the benefits of that move. If he wasn't a chicken we wouldn't be in Iraq right now, because the road to Baghdad was opened, but he was too afraid to make a stand, so were over there now.

Clinton never paid off the national debt, he paid off the national deficit. Huge [expletive deleted] difference. He never even reduced the national debt.

Haha, fair enough. But you're still the ones doing it, right now.

"You're"? Beg your pardon, squire, but you can't tar me with that brush. I leave chanting to the morons who think it's gonna work -- on EITHER side. Chanting is for people who can't form complete arguments.

Then there's outright verbal legerdemain:

REPUBLICANS: Estate tax = death tax.
DEMOCRATS: Refund adjustment/revenue enhancement = tax.
REPUBLICANS: Pro-life = anti-woman.
DEMOCRATS: Pro-choice = anti-responsibility.
REPUBLICANS: Faith-based... = yer on yer own.
DEMOCRATS: First Amendment = intolerance.

After reading and posting on this thread, I've come to the conclusion that picking a "best" or "worst" for an office as complex as the presidency is impossible. This is mostly because of the partisanship and compromise necessary for anyone to become a successful politician at that level. The person in the office is beholden to so many interests (special or otherwise) that their own contributions to the position are minimal and largely idoelogical.

The nation is so (deliberately) fragmented now that consensus is approaching extinction and now ANYone who wears a Democrat or Republican label is the immediate victim of assumptions and generalizations by the opposing side. Well, I've had it. That's enough for me, thanks. Until a "sinsible" party is formed, I can't take anything EITHER main party says seriously.

Why? Because for every Milton Friedman, there's a George Soros. For every Rush Limbaugh, there's a Michael Moore. For every Al Franken, there's an Ann Coulter. And both sides believe so firmly in their positions that the others must be insane, unpatriotic or worse.

And the admonition to "read a book" doesn't help. Why? Because both sides revise and interpret the raw data of history in order to best suit their audiences. It doesn't matter how well-written it is; if it doesn't sell (one mnor problem with capitalism, but that's yet another thread) -- nobody's gonna read it. The list of books that Roach-Busters put up can be easily countered with books from the Left. For each of his authors, I can come up with a counter in Lou DuBose, Eric Alterman, Peter MacWilliams, Walter Karp, Chalmers Johnson, Kevin Phillips, Stephanie Koontz, and many more.

What happens then? They say MY authors are all commies, and I guess I'll have to retort that THEIR authors are corporate shills, and we're back to square zero.

So that's my exit from this thread. Goodnight, all.

Oh honestly.

Well, that is the usual reply to the humanitarian justification for war.

Meanwhile, millions of chinese were being killed and raped. I'll take the embargo, which isn't much policing at all (none, really. Just saying get your goods elsewhere). Besides, the Japs ended up causing Mao to get into power by weakening the Nationalists.

Negotiate first, and if that fails, then impose an embargo.

Clinton never paid off the national debt, he paid off the national deficit. Huge [expletive deleted] difference.
No. He balanced the national budget, which would have eventually lead to the national debt being paid off.

If certain presidents weren't playing footsie with the budget.

Lincoln? FDR? Jackson?

O come on.

Birds of a feather... you're still a retard.

That's a flame. Please stop it.

Negotiate first, and if that fails, then impose an embargo.
What do you think that we'd been doing for the past 7 years? Twiddling our thumbs? We protested out the wazoo against the Japanese involvement in China, and they didn't heed us at all.

Well, the last assumption that he made about you - that you are an anti-Bush conspiracy theorist - was entirely correct, so maybe he figured he'd go two for two.

A couple of points... which I realise, is dignifying this post far more than it deserves...

Am I anti-Bush? I believe he is a liar... a dangerous man in a position of power... I believe he is power-hungry, and following an agenda that is pro-himself, maybe less-so for his nation, and destructive to others.

I'm not sure that makes me 'anti-Bush'... just anti-many-of-the-things-he-does... but then, he is a politician.

Am I a conspiracy theorist? A better question might be "what IS a conspiracy theorist?"... are you a 'conspiracy theorist' if you think that there COULD be conspiracies? "Is being a 'conspiracy theorist' a bad thing"? Surely not, if there are actually conspiracy events occuring.

Thinking about it... those who fingered Nixon were conspiracy theorists...

There have been a ton of bad presidents. Grant, Nixon, Clinton, LBJ -- but, in my opinion, the absolute worst was Jimmy Carter. Completely inept at foreign policy and a detriment to domestic policy, the guy was a loser all the way around. What's even worse is that he continues to be a thorn in the side of the US. Hell, the only good thing he's done is his work with Habitat for Humanity.

NOTE: I just know there will be a slew of kneejerk idiots hollering "GEORGE BUSH IS SATAN!" in this thread. Get a grip. He's definitely not the best president we've ever had, but he's far from the worst.
Buchanan. (1856-1860) was the worst. He set up the preconditions to trigger a civil war upon the election of Abraham Lincoln, appointed a Secretary of War that transferred Federal Property to arsenals in the states that Seceded, and tried to please everyone, thus pleasing no-one.

Harding, easily. If anyone disagrees, just look him up. Nobody really remembers him... which is good. Very good.

He was a corrupt man, wasted money, Gambled, was a drunkard, was responsible for Teapot Dome, womanizer, brought prostitutes to the White House, and generally did absolutely nothing good for America. Oddly his hometown regards him as a hero, and BUILT A DAMN MOSOLEUM on his grave. Think something like a Greek Temple, and you have the idea. He easily has the most extravegant(and expensive) burial site of any president. And for what? The guy who did pretty much everything unbecoming of a President.

Harding, easily. No other President was this bad, not even Nixon(Who really wasn't as bad as many people think), or Hoover(He really wasn't a "do nothing" President, but he did carry a general apathy).

"I went to Iraq. Before Team America showed up, Iraq was a happy place. They had... flowery meadows, and... rainbow skies... and rivers made of chocolate where the children danced and laughed and played all day long with gumdrop smiles!" - Trey Parker as Sean Penn

Right, my anti War in Iraq buddies?

Wow. I bet you spent ages googling that. :p

No. He balanced the national budget, which would have eventually lead to the national debt being paid off.

If certain presidents weren't playing footsie with the budget.

No, he would never have paid the national debt off, and no one ever will. It isn't going to happen. Ahp- ahp!! AHP!! Hey, don't even reply. Seriously. It's not going to happen, period. [Expletive Deleted] happens. You can't help that simple fact. [Expletive Deleted] will always happen. Spending in bundles will always be necessary to combat crisis, recessions and depressions will need to be fixed, wars will have to be started. Period.

Wow. I bet you spent ages googling that. :p

ROFL, no I actually memorized it, for situations like this. That movie is the best source for mocking stupid arguments. And it has the best analogy, ever.

A couple of points... which I realise, is dignifying this post far more than it deserves...

Am I anti-Bush? I believe he is a liar... a dangerous man in a position of power... I believe he is power-hungry, and following an agenda that is pro-himself, maybe less-so for his nation, and destructive to others.

I'm not sure that makes me 'anti-Bush'... just anti-many-of-the-things-he-does... but then, he is a politician.

Yeah, it does. Especially when you hate him so much that half of the reasons you hate him are baseless opinions.

Am I a conspiracy theorist? A better question might be "what IS a conspiracy theorist?"... are you a 'conspiracy theorist' if you think that there COULD be conspiracies? "Is being a 'conspiracy theorist' a bad thing"? Surely not, if there are actually conspiracy events occuring.


Oh, yeah, I forgot - you're not paranoid if they're really watching you. ;)

Harding, easily. If anyone disagrees, just look him up. Nobody really remembers him... which is good. Very good.

He was a corrupt man, wasted money, Gambled, was a drunkard, was responsible for Teapot Dome, womanizer, brought prostitutes to the White House, and generally did absolutely nothing good for America. Oddly his hometown regards him as a hero, and BUILT A DAMN MOSOLEUM on his grave. Think something like a Greek Temple, and you have the idea. He easily has the most extravegant(and expensive) burial site of any president. And for what? The guy who did pretty much everything unbecoming of a President.

Harding, easily. No other President was this bad, not even Nixon(Who really wasn't as bad as many people think), or Hoover(He really wasn't a "do nothing" President, but he did carry a general apathy).

QFT. Harding didn't care if he was good, he only wanted to be loved. That's true.

You spouted exactly the same inane arguments he made.

From which I should assume that you are some kind of Bush-yesman, who has no deductive ability - and just buys 'the party line'?

Not that that IS what I think... but if you are going to make assumptions about a person based on a comment... well, let's look at the comment you just made... the context it was in.. and the way you 'refuted' my argument...

John Kerry was the worst president EVER.

;)

No. He balanced the national budget, which would have eventually lead to the national debt being paid off.

If certain presidents weren't playing footsie with the budget.
No, he was forced to adopt a balanced budget by the Republican congress at the time.

But I'll agree in one place: Bush 43 has thrown the Republican tennet of "small government" out the window. :(

Thomas Jefferson.

No one asked Louisianans whether we wanted to be part of the barbarian states de l'Amérique, or even be associated with les Américains in any way. What thanks do we get for joining peacefully? Being drug into a civil war. :mad:

From which I should assume that you are some kind of Bush-yesman, who has no deductive ability - and just buys 'the party line'?

Not that that IS what I think... but if you are going to make assumptions about a person based on a comment... well, let's look at the comment you just made... the context it was in.. and the way you 'refuted' my argument...
Ah, but I refuted your arguments in a previous post. The fact is, Bush is not in a corporate deal with the Bin Ladens. Simply, both families invested in a gigantic multinational investment firm.

And I made the assumption because the arguments you used were directly from the film, and very, very foolish.

Yeah, it does. Especially when you hate him so much that half of the reasons you hate him are baseless opinions.


I don't 'hate' Bush... I don't 'hate' anyone.

'Hate' would imply that I had a strong feeling, either way.

I do have an opinion of Bush... one that seems to be borne out by his actions...

But then, we all have 'opinions'... in fact, that is ALL we are arguing in this thread.

That doesn't mean my opinions are 'baseless'.


Oh, yeah, I forgot - you're not paranoid if they're really watching you. ;)

Funny... but also true.

Although, I'm not sure why some people think so LITTLE of their governments, that they instantly assume anything that would take a little governmental coordination MUST be fictional.

Ah, but I refuted your arguments in a previous post. The fact is, Bush is not in a corporate deal with the Bin Ladens. Simply, both families invested in a gigantic multinational investment firm.

And I made the assumption because the arguments you used were directly from the film, and very, very foolish.
Yeah, but he patently ignored your refutation of his arguments... because getting your ass intlectually stomped by a 15 year old is a serious *ouch*. ;)

No. He balanced the national budget, which would have eventually lead to the national debt being paid off.

If certain presidents weren't playing footsie with the budget.

Clinton did not balance the national budget. He fought it tooth and nail having had 5 different proposals sent back to him by congress to correct his deficit. Clinton said at the time that balancing the budget was not an important consideration to him. He only complied because he didnt have the votes to get it through.

Although, I'm not sure why some people think so LITTLE of their governments, that they instantly assume anything that would take a little governmental coordination MUST be fictional.

Some of us who've been in the Military could explain why to you, but you'd probably not believe it. "Never assume Malice where Incompetence is a valid and (more) plausible explanation..."

In the case of Government, Incompetence is a more plausible explanation 99% of the time. Most Congresscritters don't even read the bills they sponsor, much less write them.

Ah, but I refuted your arguments in a previous post. The fact is, Bush is not in a corporate deal with the Bin Ladens. Simply, both families invested in a gigantic multinational investment firm.

And I made the assumption because the arguments you used were directly from the film, and very, very foolish.

I find it amusing that you didn't deny being a yesman to the Bush cult of personality...

The comment I made may resemble something from a film, but cannot 'be' directly from a film I have not seen. And, foolish is in the eye of the beholder.

I believe we actually (previously) had a debate about this very topic (the ibn Ladin connections) before Moore's film even came out...

But, feel free to leap to all the conclusions you wish to.

George Bush Is Satan!

Why the hell couldn't Lincoln just let the South secede?

Because Southerners were using humans as property and it was a disgusting, horrible practice. Yes, I know the Emancipation Proclamation didn't free a single slave and that Lincoln suspended habeas corpus (which he was constitutionally empowered to do so: Article I, Section 9, Clause 2). But frankly, I'm not sure that states' rights (which are important, don't get me wrong) supersede the "right" to hold people as property.

I think the worst president was Buchanan because he did almost NOTHING to stop the civil war.

B) Or, here's an option: Let the Nazis and Soviets duke it out, and then finish off the winner.

That is rediculous. After years of war the winner would have had a large, battle hardened army, years technological head start through war research, and all the resources of the conquered nation.


I think that the Nazis would have won, rather quickly even, because the Russians would have been without American help through the lend lease program, and there would have been no secondary fronts such as N. Africa and Sicily/Italy.

Sorry to interrupt the conversation, but I feel like chipping in my two cents on which were the worst US presidents.

5. Grant- Unbelievably corrupt.

4. Clinton- His economic success was due entirely to previous US Presidents and the Republican congress, but the few economic policies he managed to slip in spelled the end of the 90's prosperity. Went after Microsoft, the leader in the Information Age, while Enron etc. were left to their own devices. Refused to stop bin-Laden or go after Saddam, generally pussy-footing in his economics. Bowed down to the Chinese and refused to ban partial-birth abortions. Murdered Serbians on trumped-up, bogus charges in Kosovo. He should be charged along with Wesley Clark and Slobo for war crimes.

3. Carter- Holier-than-thou spineless wimp. Let communists reign free and refused to stand up for American allies, letting them fall into more repressive dictatorship. Showed no resistance towards the USSR except for boycotting the Moscow Olympics. Did nothing to help alleviate the Oil Crisis, and was the leader of a stunningly bad economy.

2. LBJ- High Priest of the Order of Corrupt Bureaucracy. Demonized Barry Goldwater and was the first person to have a negative TV campaign ad. Sent American Soldiers into Vietnam with no plan and ridiculous rules of engagement, leaving them to be picked off at will.

1. FDR- Pro-Jim Crow laws, anti-lynch criminalization, pro-Vichy France, introduced big government corrupt bureaucracy into America. He did not end the Great Depression, in fact after a mild recovery it went sour once more. It was World War II that ended the great depression. He sold out most all of Europe and would have sold out Britain too if it hadn't been for Winston Churchill, who inspired Americans. He refused to show any backbone to Stalin and left Eastern Europe and much of Asia in communist hands.

My top 5

1. Grant
2. GwB
3. JFK
4. Lincoln
5. Nixon

That is rediculous. After years of war the winner would have had a large, battle hardened army, years technological head start through war research, and all the resources of the conquered nation.


I think that the Nazis would have won, rather quickly even, because the Russians would have been without American help through the lend lease program, and there would have been no secondary fronts such as N. Africa and Sicily/Italy.

Torch was in 1943. Stalin was already piledriving the germans back through kursk by then, so the americans second front wasnt an issue until stalin was already winning. The soviets likely would have recieved lend-lease in the beginning anyways, as they would have been losing, and only after stalingrad would the germans start getting US support.

As for the first paragraph, it wouldnt matter much. Both armies would have slowly demolished each other into horridly small sizes. Even if they were technologically better, their forces would be so small and battered, that the US would have won through numbers(besides, a good portion of the US technology was pre-ww2, such as the Garand. Much more would have been designed by observing what was occuring in europe.)

1. FDR- ...Mucho Snipping... He refused to show any backbone to Stalin and left Eastern Europe and much of Asia in communist hands.

Do you realize what kind of a situation FDR was dealing with before he died? If he had "shown any backbone" (I am assuming that means a strong anti-Communist foreign policy or something along those lines) to Stalin, we would have estranged our most valuable ally in the fight against Nazi Germany, not to mention a possible ally in the fight against Japan. Had FDR survived the war, I can see you faulting him with this, but he did nothing wrong considerign circumstances. Would you rather we had fought the Soviet Union, Germany, and Japan at the same time?

Because Southerners were using humans as property and it was a disgusting, horrible practice. Yes, I know the Emancipation Proclamation didn't free a single slave and that Lincoln suspended habeas corpus (which he was constitutionally empowered to do so: Article I, Section 9, Clause 2). But frankly, I'm not sure that states' rights (which are important, don't get me wrong) supersede the "right" to hold people as property.

It was a disgusting, horrible practice in your opinion. Not in the souths, and others opinions.

Hoover.

Do you realize what kind of a situation FDR was dealing with before he died? If he had "shown any backbone" (I am assuming that means a strong anti-Communist foreign policy or something along those lines) to Stalin, we would have estranged our most valuable ally in the fight against Nazi Germany, not to mention a possible ally in the fight against Japan. Had FDR survived the war, I can see you faulting him with this, but he did nothing wrong considerign circumstances. Would you rather we had fought the Soviet Union, Germany, and Japan at the same time?

No. I'd have rather that we use Russia as much as possible to wear out it's power (which had already been done), then made them back off from Eastern Europe once we'd finished off the Axis, by force if necessary. We already had the atom bomb, the Cold War might have started a little bit earlier but it would have been much more in Western favor and have concluded sooner. Even if we had had to continue the Second World War for a bit, it would have been a war against a depleted foe. Much better than decades of oppression and murder for millions and violent global warfare. FDR did not prepare for standing up to Stalin either, instead he gave a blank check to the USSR (while giving the illusory image that he was standing up to the Russians to win the votes of Eastern European Americans, consummate politician that he was). One of the ways this was shown was that we allowed Russia to take Berlin, and he was also strongly behind a propaganda drive to angelicize "Uncle Joe". Also, we really didn't want Russia as an ally in Japan. In words and threats, maybe, but many American strategists feared a situation in which Japan would be divided up- this was one of the driving forces behind the use of the atom bomb.

Carter, Reagan, FDR, Wilson, Nixon, Bush II, Jackson, Walt Disney (not a presient but I hate him), Lincoln, and LBJ.

It was a disgusting, horrible practice in your opinion. Not in the souths, and others opinions.
Are you seriously defending slavery?

LBJ: corrupt, amoral scumbag. Out of all the possible conspiracies about the Kennedy assasination, LBJ having it done is the most plausible. (Not that I care much for Kennedy either)

Truman: gutted the US military after WWII. This was not neccessarily bad it is the fact that while doing so he lied to the public about its condition, assuring everybody that the US military was in fine shape. Then Korea rolled around and we sent men into combat wearing sneakers, with non-functioning weapons and little training. Result, many dead servicemen.

FDR: Thank you for prolonging the Great Depression, creating an entitlement society and convincing the US public it couldn't survive without government assistance. And also that annoying cigarette holder. . . :rolleyes:

Jefferson. . .just because everybody freakin loves this guy. I hated him from the moment he was first held up by my high school history teacher as the second coming of Christ. It instantly made me a defender of John Adams for no other reason than he was in the opposite camp.


Grant? What the heck does everybody pick on Grant for? Yes, yes he was a poor president but he himself was not corrupt. He was just a weak politician who couldn't see the corruption of the people who worked with him.

Sorry to interrupt the conversation, but I feel like chipping in my two cents on which were the worst US presidents.

5. Grant- Unbelievably corrupt.

Agreed. Well, his office was corrupt. Maybe shouldn't be on the Worst Presidents list.

4. Clinton- His economic success was due entirely to previous US Presidents and the Republican congress, but the few economic policies he managed to slip in spelled the end of the 90's prosperity. Went after Microsoft, the leader in the Information Age, while Enron etc. were left to their own devices. Refused to stop bin-Laden or go after Saddam, generally pussy-footing in his economics. Bowed down to the Chinese and refused to ban partial-birth abortions. Murdered Serbians on trumped-up, bogus charges in Kosovo. He should be charged along with Wesley Clark and Slobo for war crimes.

Agreed.

3. Carter- Holier-than-thou spineless wimp. Let communists reign free and refused to stand up for American allies, letting them fall into more repressive dictatorship. Showed no resistance towards the USSR except for boycotting the Moscow Olympics. Did nothing to help alleviate the Oil Crisis, and was the leader of a stunningly bad economy.

Agreed.

2. LBJ- High Priest of the Order of Corrupt Bureaucracy. Demonized Barry Goldwater and was the first person to have a negative TV campaign ad. Sent American Soldiers into Vietnam with no plan and ridiculous rules of engagement, leaving them to be picked off at will.

Agreed.

1. FDR- Pro-Jim Crow laws, anti-lynch criminalization, pro-Vichy France, introduced big government corrupt bureaucracy into America. He did not end the Great Depression, in fact after a mild recovery it went sour once more. It was World War II that ended the great depression. He sold out most all of Europe and would have sold out Britain too if it hadn't been for Winston Churchill, who inspired Americans. He refused to show any backbone to Stalin and left Eastern Europe and much of Asia in communist hands.

This is where I'd have to disagree. FDR was a faily ineffective President, and he waited way too long to go into World War II, thinking that an isolationist stance could work. But, although our leaving the Great Depression was mainly attributable to World War II, his office was partly responsible for it, and I'm not so sure he had the option of showing Stalin backbone at the time. In short, I wouldn't consider him the worst President of all time, there were many that were far worse than he. For instance, Hoover was pretty awful... no, he was not in any way at fault for the Great Depression, but he didn't try very hard to fix it.

I hate to ask a stupid question, but what did Clinton do??? :confused:

That's not a stupid question because Clinton didn't do anything while he was President. Except to not have sex with Monica.

Carter, Reagan, FDR, Wilson, Nixon, Bush II, Jackson, Walt Disney (not a presient but I hate him), Lincoln, and LBJ.

Ummm, Reagan, Nixon, Bush Jr., and Lincoln? Apparently you don't know very much about past U.S. Presidents if you're picking those as some of the worst.

Personally me I think the Presidents we don't hear about are the biggest dumbasses and screwballs in the world.

Curious, isn't it? I just said that 'at least Carter didn't lie about a war'... and you immediately made the connection to Bush.... although I didn't even mention him in that context.

You know he lied, hence, the jump of logic.

No sir, I know your politics and your hatred for President Bush from your posts. Therefore, it was not difficult to make the connection.

I put Grant there because I was fishing around for a fifth president and since he was terribly corrupt I decided to put him there. Could be interchangeable for any of the Gilded Age presidents, really.

This is where I'd have to disagree. FDR was a faily ineffective President, and he waited way too long to go into World War II, thinking that an isolationist stance could work. But, although our leaving the Great Depression was mainly attributable to World War II, his office was partly responsible for it, and I'm not so sure he had the option of showing Stalin backbone at the time. In short, I wouldn't consider him the worst President of all time, there were many that were far worse than he. For instance, Hoover was pretty awful... no, he was not in any way at fault for the Great Depression, but he didn't try very hard to fix it.

Already responded to the World War II bit, but I'll elaborate on the Depression.

I really don't think he was that much behind the recovery from the Great Depression. Maybe in the sense that he (eventually) entered World War II, but he really didn't do that much. There was only a very small decline in unemployment during his presidency before the war, which jumped back up after a recession within a recession. Even with his pork-barrel fence-painting and yard-raking bureaucracies, he wasn't able to lower the unemployment rate significantly. Plus, he spent an enormous amount of money on these projects, which hurt our credit rating and also put pressure on the people and business. I will agree, though, that Hoover should have done something like lower taxes instead of sitting there twiddling his thumbs, plus he was behind the massive inflation and speculation that caused the Great Depression. Maybe I should have put him in one of the spots... but I still think that FDR was seriously overrated and the worst of all.

No president deserves full credit for anything because they don't do it all alone.

BINGO!

Carter was indeed horrible (he should be tried for crimes against humanity), but he wasn't quite as bad as Lincoln or FDR.

They are all bad. Lincoln was tyrranical, and the south should have been able to secede. He violated the constitution constantly as well. FDR was a communist who created unconstitutional government agencies and is responsible for the big government today that needs to be cut down. Not to mention he tried to make Amercia get involved in World War II. However, Carter takes the cake for not only screwing America over, but also screwing the rest of the world over. Carter allowed the Shah to fall from power in Iran, and had even been responsible for him falling in the first place. The Shah was a great leader who modernized the nation, and Jimmy Carter let him be replaced by a crazy anti-American Mullah.

Already responded to the World War II bit, but I'll elaborate on the Depression.

I really don't think he was that much behind the recovery from the Great Depression. Maybe in the sense that he (eventually) entered World War II, but he really didn't do that much. There was only a very small decline in unemployment during his presidency before the war, which jumped back up after a recession within a recession. Even with his pork-barrel fence-painting and yard-raking bureaucracies, he wasn't able to lower the unemployment rate significantly. Plus, he spent an enormous amount of money on these projects, which hurt our credit rating and also put pressure on the people and business. I will agree, though, that Hoover should have done something like lower taxes instead of sitting there twiddling his thumbs, plus he was behind the massive inflation and speculation that caused the Great Depression. Maybe I should have put him in one of the spots... but I still think that FDR was seriously overrated and the worst of all.

Agreed. I would definately put him in the top ten, I'm just saying maybe not in the top five. We've had worse. I would at least slip in Hoover between Carter and Johnson and drop Grant from your list.

They are all bad. Lincoln was tyrranical, and the south should have been able to secede.
Ummm, are you kidding? America wouldn't be here today if that happened. All the Southerners did was play with guns, farm and lynch people, and they still couldn't take our under-athletic yankees with old-school muskets. What do you think Britain would have done to them if we'd let them secede?

FDR was a communist who created unconstitutional government agencies and is responsible for the big government today that needs to be cut down.
True.

Not to mention he tried to make Amercia get involved in World War II.
What the [expletive deleted]? He didn't get us into the war quickly enough.

However, Carter takes the cake for not only screwing America over, but also screwing the rest of the world over. Carter allowed the Shah to fall from power in Iran, and had even been responsible for him falling in the first place.
Fair enough.

The Shah was a great leader who modernized the nation, and Jimmy Carter let him be replaced by a crazy anti-American Mullah.
Also fair. Carter was quite the gutless panzy, eh?

Carter was indeed horrible (he should be tried for crimes against humanity), but he wasn't quite as bad as Lincoln or FDR.

How were Lincoln or FDR bad?

I don't 'hate' Bush... I don't 'hate' anyone.

'Hate' would imply that I had a strong feeling, either way.

ROFLMAO! He doesn't hate Bush. :)

How were Lincoln or FDR bad?

Lincoln, no idea what that guy was talking about; FDR, I could explain it to you, but Zethistania did a much better job than I could do (without a half-hour of research) in posts 203, 209 and 218.

Sorry to interrupt the conversation, but I feel like chipping in my two cents on which were the worst US presidents.

5. Grant- Unbelievably corrupt.

4. Clinton- His economic success was due entirely to previous US Presidents and the Republican congress, but the few economic policies he managed to slip in spelled the end of the 90's prosperity. Went after Microsoft, the leader in the Information Age, while Enron etc. were left to their own devices. Refused to stop bin-Laden or go after Saddam, generally pussy-footing in his economics. Bowed down to the Chinese and refused to ban partial-birth abortions. Murdered Serbians on trumped-up, bogus charges in Kosovo. He should be charged along with Wesley Clark and Slobo for war crimes.

3. Carter- Holier-than-thou spineless wimp. Let communists reign free and refused to stand up for American allies, letting them fall into more repressive dictatorship. Showed no resistance towards the USSR except for boycotting the Moscow Olympics. Did nothing to help alleviate the Oil Crisis, and was the leader of a stunningly bad economy.

2. LBJ- High Priest of the Order of Corrupt Bureaucracy. Demonized Barry Goldwater and was the first person to have a negative TV campaign ad. Sent American Soldiers into Vietnam with no plan and ridiculous rules of engagement, leaving them to be picked off at will.

1. FDR- Pro-Jim Crow laws, anti-lynch criminalization, pro-Vichy France, introduced big government corrupt bureaucracy into America. He did not end the Great Depression, in fact after a mild recovery it went sour once more. It was World War II that ended the great depression. He sold out most all of Europe and would have sold out Britain too if it hadn't been for Winston Churchill, who inspired Americans. He refused to show any backbone to Stalin and left Eastern Europe and much of Asia in communist hands.

Very well said. An outstanding post.

FDR wasn't that bad. He made America a lot less pessimistic during the depression. Like the history channel said, he was America's shining light by keeping us in the dark. He would have made us go to war sooner if it wasn't for the fact that most Americans didn't want us involved in another European conflict. WWI was still fresh in their minds. FDR believed that the government should help the people, not just collect taxes and send people to war. He had relief programs to help us get past the depression. If that means he's evil, than doing nothing about the Depression makes a guy worse than Satan himself. He made America happy again after we suffered the single-most devestating economic slump in American history. He raised American morale greatly.

Clinton isn't a bad leader. He helped the economy and helped in the European crises of the day. Besides, his sex life is none of our business.

Nixon isn't a bad leader. Sure, you could say that Watergate made him worse than Hitler, that being accused of aiding Watergate is worse than mass genocide, but he pulled us out of Vietnam and improved relations with China.

The worst ones are probably the Genocidal Andrew Jackson, the pro-business do-nothing Hoover, or that guy before Lincoln who would have let the South's succession dramaticly weaken the nation as a whole, making it vulnerable to being conquered by a foreign nation.

The person your're looking for is Buchanan.

No one knows how truly horrible Andrew Johnson was, indeed he was legitimatley impeached. Dubbya doesnt belong on the list, right or wrong he is certainly not inept. And I think Grant gets a bad rap, he brought the south to heel, thats for sure.

I think that the worst, however, would be either Ford or Carter, as both represent the low point of American policy and influence. But then, those could just be the worst times they occupied.

FOr all the FDR haters...what would YOU have done in that situation?

Hindsight is 20/20, but he did what was probably best for the nation then.

And how come no one has brought up the fact that he couldn't walk? He overcame great odds to be President, and for leading the nation in one of it's most difficult and pressing times, I think he did a damn good job. As Avika mentioned, people found strength in a guy that we know now couldn't walk.

With the exception of a few, they all did some stupid shit. What can I say...bad trees grow in bad soil! Expect nothing less :p

Andrew Johnson.

His horrible reconstruction program was one of the worst things ever done in the US. Instead of a slow steady integration of slaves into the mainstream, he set the stage for terrible "race" relations for a long, long time, due to the southern backlash against reconstruction.
Someone who actually know's American history.

The presidents of the 20th century and even GWB, don't compare to some of the wackos from before.

Agreed. I would definately put him in the top ten, I'm just saying maybe not in the top five. We've had worse. I would at least slip in Hoover between Carter and Johnson and drop Grant from your list.

Hmmm... though I don't think Hoover wasn't as much a peril in regards of foreign policy as Carter was, he did help to bring about World War II. So I suppose it's

5. Clinton
4. Hoover
3. Carter
2. LBJ
1. FDR.

FDR or Abraham Lincoln was our worst president, or maybe Wilson. All three are horrible men who deserve to be wretched out of the ground, brought back to life, and shot (or in Lincoln's case, shot again).

FDR deliberately dragged the United States into war. He provoked the Japanese into attacking the US. He knew all along that the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor, we had already broken the Japanese Codes! Not only that, he interned Japanese Americans without due process. In 1940, he was having secret meetings with Churchill, the most famous one known as the Atlantic Charter, where he met with Churchill to plan out how the world would look after the war. That's right, he was having meetings with Churchill before we even entered the war! Not only that, he brokered a treaty with a foreign nation, which was and still is ILLEGAL because CONGRESS MUST SIGN ALL TREATIES!

Also, FDR's New Deals (there were TWO of them for those who don't know that... you know why? Because the first one failed, just like the second one did) sucked shit. They opened the way for the 'Nanny State', where the state provides all the programs for its citizens so that way its citizens just become worthless and need the social programs to live. His New Deal programs barely worked. Twice more the economy receded during FDR's NEW DEALs, only to be revived because HE SENT US TO WAR! He got rid of a lot of unemployment by sending those who were unemployed to DIE.

FDR left many Americans to DIE at Pearl Harbor, just so we could join in on a war being fought far away from us... Also, if you haven't figured it out yet, the only reason FDR fixed unemployment was because he put our boys into the military to go die in his war!

Same thing with Woodrow Wilson. He's another douche. He also deliberately dragged us into the 'Family Squabble'. By trading with the Triple Entente, and not the Central Powers, Germany had no choice but to consider us enemies. WTF?!?! You don't go trading with someone's enemy and expect them not to go blow up supply ships! Not only that, he left Americans to die because he refused to order Americans not to go to England, which the GERMANS HAD SPECIFICALLY SAID WAS DECLARED A WAR ZONE. Americans once again died to fuel a moron's ambitions.

Abraham Lincoln was the worst of them all. The war wasn't about Slavery, it never was! The only way that dickweed could EVER justify killing a MILLION American lives was to put some crappy ass 'moral' cause to it. Not only that, his 'Emancipation Proclamation' was a load of bull. It didn't free anybody. It was just used as a political tool. Also, the South had ever right to secede. 'Those Power Not Expressly Given To the Federal Government Are Reserved To The States' the power/control over secession was never given to the Federal Government, therefore, the States had every right to secede. Secondly, the Constitution is a 'contract', SIGNED BY THE STATES to be put into power and the Southern states considered that the Federal Government had broken their contract to the Southern States.

The constitution is a contract. The states had to sign it to ratify it just like business's have to sign a contract for it to become a contract. The constitution was not enforced upon them by a dictatorial government, therefore, if one party feels the contract has been voided, the otherside has every right to not follow along on the contract and/or seek legal intervention on the contract. They legally intervened the only way the South could, using SC as an example way back in the day with the 'Nullification Acts', the South seceded from the US.

FDR believed that the government should help the people, not just collect taxes and send people to war.

Wait, so you mean he helped people by collecting their taxes so he could pay for his war machine so he could then send them off to war?

Because that's what he did.

FDR wasn't that bad. He made America a lot less pessimistic during the depression.
Hahaha, I get it, that's a pun... made us less pessimistic in the depression... ahaha... good one!

He would have made us go to war sooner if it wasn't for the fact that most Americans didn't want us involved in another European conflict.
Yeah, most people don't support the War in Iraq, at the moment, but Bush had the balls to make the right call. FDR killed millions on every side by waiting so long to stop the trouble Germany and Japan were causing.

FDR believed that the government should help the people, not just collect taxes and send people to war.
Also known as, he told people through nearly permanent legislation that they needed the government, and that they couldn't survive well on their own.

He had relief programs to help us get past the depression.
True, but they should have been eradicated after the Great Depression ended.

If that means he's evil, than doing nothing about the Depression makes a guy worse than Satan himself.
Nobody said he was evil, just a pretty bad President. Bill Clinton wasn't a bad person, he just sucked at being President.

Clinton isn't a bad leader. He helped the economy and helped in the European crises of the day.
And let Osama slip out of our fingers more than once, and gave North Korea money for nuclear programs assuming they'd be responsible with it, and is tied to over eighty strange and inexplicable deaths, and pardoned a bunch of undeserving criminals before he left office, etc. And Clinton isn't the one that helped the economy, congress proposed and passed the economically beneficial legislation, not his administration. But, yeah, other than all of that, he was a great President. You act as if the only stupid thing he did was get his [expletive deleted] sucked... JFK did that all the time, and the Democrats worship him.

Nixon isn't a bad leader. Sure, you could say that Watergate made him worse than Hitler, that being accused of aiding Watergate is worse than mass genocide, but he pulled us out of Vietnam and improved relations with China.
Ummm, he wasn't involved in Watergate, he just covered for his political allies at the time after the Watergate thing was uncovered, and had to resign to protect the tapes they had made which probably possessed information which the American public, but more importantly the non-American public, should not have been introduced to, that was completely unrelated to Watergate. In case you don't remember or never read it, he offered up a good portion of the tapes, using his own discretion at what should be kept confidential.

FDR deliberately dragged the United States into war. He provoked the Japanese into attacking the US. He knew all along that the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor, we had already broken the Japanese Codes!

I wish that were even remotely true. We should have gone in long before FDR's balls dropped.

In 1940, he was having secret meetings with Churchill, the most famous one known as the Atlantic Charter, where he met with Churchill to plan out how the world would look after the war. That's right, he was having meetings with Churchill before we even entered the war! Not only that, he brokered a treaty with a foreign nation, which was and still is ILLEGAL because CONGRESS MUST SIGN ALL TREATIES! Twice more the economy receded during FDR's NEW DEALs, only to be revived because HE SENT US TO WAR! He got rid of a lot of unemployment by sending those who were unemployed to DIE.

You act as if going into WWII was a choice, or a bad decision. He killed millions more by not going into WWII when it started, and by waiting so long.

Same thing with Woodrow Wilson. He's another douche. He also deliberately dragged us into the 'Family Squabble'. By trading with the Triple Entente, and not the Central Powers, Germany had no choice but to consider us enemies. WTF?!?! You don't go trading with someone's enemy and expect them not to go blow up supply ships! Not only that, he left Americans to die because he refused to order Americans not to go to England, which the GERMANS HAD SPECIFICALLY SAID WAS DECLARED A WAR ZONE. Americans once again died to fuel a moron's ambitions.

Once again, I wish Wilson would have been that smart. We should have gone in much sooner.

Abraham Lincoln was the worst of them all. The war wasn't about Slavery, it never was! The only way that dickweed could EVER justify killing a MILLION American lives was to put some crappy ass 'moral' cause to it.

Yes, he attacked using the excuse that we were doing it to end slavery... that's why he offered to allow the South to keep their slaves if they did not secede.

Also, the South had ever right to secede. 'Those Power Not Expressly Given To the Federal Government Are Reserved To The States' the power/control over secession was never given to the Federal Government, therefore, the States had every right to secede. Secondly, the Constitution is a 'contract', SIGNED BY THE STATES to be put into power and the Southern states considered that the Federal Government had broken their contract to the Southern States.

Just because they had a right to secede doesn't mean it was the correct decision, or good for America in any way, shape or form.

[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle]Because his political aspirations required a war.

...Or because they attacked Fort Sumpter. The South, despite what we get of the modern day interpretation of Lincoln's actions (yet ironic considering the DW Griffith period of interpretation praised what Lincoln could have done had he not been shot), started that damn war. They mobilized troops first, and they were impatient enough to shed first blood.

Noone gave a damn about the South's secession until they pulled the equivalent of 9/11 in that first attack (and we can see this with the abolitions writing of the time period quite happy with separation from the South before the attack on Fort Sumpter). The validity and strength of the federal government depended on what Lincoln decided, and the preservation of a democracy (the only real democracy of its time, hardly 60 years old) depended on what Lincoln did. Pretty troubling times in its context.

Clinton? He wasn't too bad-he broke the Democrat monopoly on Congressional power in 1994, after all, which provided significant relief to the economy and allowed the '90s boom to happen at all.

Getting his knob polished was a nice distraction in the press-what should have been the focus of the investigation, though, was his retroactive executive orders allowing McDonnell Douglas to sell the Communist Chinese advanced, sensitive, missile technology useful for dropping warheads on the U.S., his accepting of PLA moneys in the Democratic Campaigns of 1992 and 1996, his involvement with John Huang, and his betrayal of American Servicemen in Mogadishu in 1993.

That, and his combination "Cut the budget and deploy them pell-mell" military policies are far more significant negatives than what he may or may not have done with monica blowinski. (though if he were recieving head while making some of those decisions, it could explain the erratic behaviour...)

Over all, at worst, Clinton was mediocre after 1994, which is to say "not too bad on the whole" compared to the kind of damage he could have gotten away with had he had a friendly or easily-blackmailed congress.

Gore would have been terrifying in comparison-you don't serve that long in the Senate without knowing where the bodies are buried. given his beliefs on the Envirionment, Gore could have pushed Kyoto through, finished dismantling the industrial base (even quicker) and savaged those of us not of the blessed Elite* with taxation-into-poverty.

[The Blessed Elite: those with enough ties and money to get exemptions put in.]

Clinton? He wasn't too bad-he broke the Democrat monopoly on Congressional power in 1994, after all, which provided significant relief to the economy and allowed the '90s boom to happen at all.

Everything you said was correct except for this. Clinton did not allow the economy boom - Reagan did, via bankrupting the soviets, which left us with an incredible amount of extra money to spend that was formerly being spent in competition with the soviets; and the large tech companies did, by pushing America into the age of technology and provoking the U.S. markets to boom.

Serosa, sorry to tell you, but Abraham provoked the South by not removing Union Troops from Fort Sumter AND by resupplying them. They were foreign troops in their countries sovereign soil. Abraham provoked the South, not the other way around. Get your history straight.

Rogue, I'm sorry, but you must also brush up on your history... Wilson's intervention into WWI led directly to WWII. Had the United States NOT entered WWI, the European Nations would've had to sign a peace treaty because no one else had the manpower or economic power to fight on. The war would've been settled diplomatically, and the Treaty of Versailles would never have been created, therefore, never leading to a Facist Germany, which would never lead to the Holocaust, etc. We can all blame Woodrow Wilson for this World's problems.

Also, what farfetched reason did FDR have to go into WWII anways? It's not our war. We weren't attacked. Not until he provoked the Japanese into attacking us. And it is true. For 60 years, information has been kept from the American Public because it is 'Classified'. Under the Freedom of Information Act, we should have that information from the FDR presidency. What was said? I'll tell you, FDR sent us to war!

Also, just to clear up a myth, Hitler did NOT want to take over the world. Hitler wanted Liebenstram, or living space. That's why he attacked Russia, because his plans needed the 'living space' for his people. Hitler knew that the US controlled the Western hemisphere and he felt that the US would collapse anyways from what he termed it as 'mongrelization'. The Japanese felt that the American presence in the Phillippines was an attack to 'Asian' Sovereignty, ' therefore, they atttacked.

And yes, Abraham definately wanted the South to 'keep their slaves,' which is why he resupplied Fort Sumter so they would have to defend their sovereignty, and therefore declare war.

Everything you said was correct except for this. Clinton did not allow the economy boom - Reagan did, via bankrupting the soviets, which left us with an incredible amount of extra money to spend that was formerly being spent in competition with the soviets; and the large tech companies did, by pushing America into the age of technology and provoking the U.S. markets to boom.
That boom was in significant danger of being pissed away by one-party government. Clinton's loss of Congress stopped destructive policies from being enacted that would have pretty much set us up the economic bomb-in a bad way.

It also reminded the surviving incumbents who owned those seats-and it wasn't them. The Dems would still have a 'lock' on Congress if not for Bill, and we'd have an even worse economic situation NOW because of it. Breaking the lock on the Congress allowed the post-cold-war boom to happen.

Serosa, sorry to tell you, but Abraham provoked the South by not removing Union Troops from Fort Sumter AND by resupplying them. They were foreign troops in their countries sovereign soil. Abraham provoked the South, not the other way around. Get your history straight.

Rogue, I'm sorry, but you must also brush up on your history... Wilson's intervention into WWI led directly to WWII. Had the United States NOT entered WWI, the European Nations would've had to sign a peace treaty because no one else had the manpower or economic power to fight on. The war would've been settled diplomatically, and the Treaty of Versailles would never have been created, therefore, never leading to a Facist Germany, which would never lead to the Holocaust, etc. We can all blame Woodrow Wilson for this World's problems.

Also, what farfetched reason did FDR have to go into WWII anways? It's not our war. We weren't attacked. Not until he provoked the Japanese into attacking us. And it is true. For 60 years, information has been kept from the American Public because it is 'Classified'. Under the Freedom of Information Act, we should have that information from the FDR presidency. What was said? I'll tell you, FDR sent us to war!

Also, just to clear up a myth, Hitler did NOT want to take over the world. Hitler wanted Liebenstram, or living space. That's why he attacked Russia, because his plans needed the 'living space' for his people. Hitler knew that the US controlled the Western hemisphere and he felt that the US would collapse anyways from what he termed it as 'mongrelization'. The Japanese felt that the American presence in the Phillippines was an attack to 'Asian' Sovereignty, ' therefore, they atttacked.

And yes, Abraham definately wanted the South to 'keep their slaves,' which is why he resupplied Fort Sumter so they would have to defend their sovereignty, and therefore declare war.

Fort Sumter is federal property, and as such, the federal government can resupply it to its heart's content. Still doesn't change the fact that the south opened fire (treason, by the way) on US soil.

Rogue, I'm sorry, but you must also brush up on your history... Wilson's intervention into WWI led directly to WWII. Had the United States NOT entered WWI, the European Nations would've had to sign a peace treaty because no one else had the manpower or economic power to fight on. The war would've been settled diplomatically, and the Treaty of Versailles would never have been created, therefore, never leading to a Facist Germany, which would never lead to the Holocaust, etc. We can all blame Woodrow Wilson for this World's problems.

No, it is you who must brush up on your history, as well as your understanding of the military, and psychology. HISTORY First of all, Wilson intervened because we intercepted the Zimmerman note, in which the German minister prompted Mexico to enter into war with the United States, so that they would be unable to inhibit Germany's aggression in Europe. PSYCHOLOGY/MILITARY Yes, the Zimmerman note said that its intentions in having Mexico attack the United States were to keep it neutral. However, anyone with minimal understanding of military tactics and criminal psychology can tell you that their true purpose was to keep the United States neutral until it was finished with Europe. Afterwards, there would have been no reason for it not to go ahead and conquer the U.S., as well, and they'd have been better equipped to do so, what with the combined technology of the European nations at their disposal, as well as many new soldiers to train and use. MILITARY/HISTORY There is nothing to indicate that Germany's attempts at European domination would not have succeeded, were it not for America's involvement. Also, the Treaty of Versailles was not America's idea, and something similar surely would have arisen if Germany did, in fact, fail without America being involved.

Also, what farfetched reason did FDR have to go into WWII anways? It's not our war. We weren't attacked. Not until he provoked the Japanese into attacking us. And it is true. For 60 years, information has been kept from the American Public because it is 'Classified'. Under the Freedom of Information Act, we should have that information from the FDR presidency. What was said? I'll tell you, FDR sent us to war!
Ummm, if it's classified, how do you know such information even exists? I hate conspiracy theorists... There are so many other reasons why any information might have been withheld regarding the matter.

Also, just to clear up a myth, Hitler did NOT want to take over the world. Hitler wanted Liebenstram, or living space. That's why he attacked Russia, because his plans needed the 'living space' for his people. Hitler knew that the US controlled the Western hemisphere and he felt that the US would collapse anyways from what he termed it as 'mongrelization'. The Japanese felt that the American presence in the Phillippines was an attack to 'Asian' Sovereignty, ' therefore, they atttacked.

Also, just to clear up a myth, Hitler did not intend to do or adhere to 99.9% of what he said. He was far along with syphilis, and if you know anything about what siphilis does in later stages, you'd know that it drives people insane.

Fort Sumter is federal property, and as such, the federal government can resupply it to its heart's content. Still doesn't change the fact that the south opened fire (treason, by the way) on US soil.

Treason, or an act of war. Ft. Sumter was ceded to the U.S. Government by the Sovereign State, it was legally (even under State Law) U.S. territory and therefore unaffected by the secession. i.e. it was still U.S. territory, and therefore, the attack, and the siege, were either Treason, or an Act of War. As Commander-in-Chief, Lincoln was obligated to resupply the base at Ft. Sumter, or be derelict in his duty (an impeachable offense by the way).
Further, the Garrison at the fort were United States Servicemen. There is a matter of duty to those men not to let them be starved into submission by a foreign state seeking to invade United States property (if you take the Confederate stance, Lincoln STILL had no choice in the matter.)

Had the South not attacked before they were ready to fight a war, they might have won-the ultimate blame for the Confederacy's defeat lies at the feet of PT Beauregard, who kicked the war off five to ten years before the Confederacy was in any kind of shape to fight a war. Confederate units did not have an industrial base sufficient to support the Army of Northern Virginia, much less the other Confederate Armies, they lacked internal supply lines in the form of Railroads sufficient to maintain the size of the armies necessary to actually defeat the Republic, they lacked sufficient deployable manpower, a functioning navy, and efficient communications necessary to win a modern war (modern for that time, no less!)
They also had a crippling lack of coordination between the various 'state' armies. This allowed the piecemeal defeats in the Western theatre, and prevented Lee from being able to run an effective long-term campaign-such a campaign was obviously required, by the way, based on the example of the Crimean conflicts of the 1850's, which both Confederate, and Union officers observed and reported on.

The War between the States was the first true "Modern" war-industrial capacity and the ability to rapidly replace losses played more of a part in the Union's eventual win than any 'elan or willingness to fight did. The Union had industrial capacity to equip large numbers of soldiers with effective weapons rapidly, and increasing manpower from continued immigration during the entire war-allowing irish boys coming off the boat to have an 'instant income' among other sources by signing up.

Railroads were another major factor, the Confederacy had few, and no ability to maintain them. Union forces had many, and laid more track as the conflict went on, this allowed for rapid resupply of units and movement of replacements from point-to-point. Union forces had more standardized equipment, and more equipment being made, than the confederates could import, making it easier to outfit and train fresh replacements, which were coming at a steady stream. (Deep reserves). The U.S. Navy was able to paralyze the South's economy at very little risk, and the U.S. Navy also perfected Amphibious operations along the Mississippi river front-a perfection enabled by possessing most of the riverine-capable transports.
The Confederate Navy introduced the Ironclad, but it lacked the industrial backing and Naval traditions to make use of the innovation as more than an occasional nuisance.
this is similar to some of the other innovations used by the Confederates earlier than the Union during the war-they worked, but they didn't have nearly enough capacity to be decisive.

The Confederacy attacked, and found itself at war with an enemy that had the slack to learn from its mistakes, something they could not afford, and that is why they eventually lost-but the key thing here, is that the Confederacy Attacked. Had they not done so, and instead focused on preparations for a long conflict, they might have been able to pull out a victory-or at the very least, a stalemate.

Fort Sumter is federal property, and as such, the federal government can resupply it to its heart's content. Still doesn't change the fact that the south opened fire (treason, by the way) on US soil.

Which the US refused to take off of the property of a newly soverign country.

Are you seriously defending slavery?

Yes, I am. The slave trade made the cotton economy of the US boom for a long while. As long as slavery was profitable to the nation, it would remain high. When it became unprofitable, it would go away, which would be some time in the late 19th/early 20th century. The civil war quite possibly delayed the civil rights movement, as the south was forced to give up slavery, making them anti-black and anti-north.

I suppose its less of an argument for slavery, and more against the civil war.

Which the US refused to take off of the property of a newly soverign country.

It wasnt seen as a sovereign country by the union.

It wasnt seen as a sovereign country by the union.

By the Constitution the CSA had a right to secede.

Which the US refused to take off of the property of a newly soverign country.
Irrelevent. What the south did is the equivilent of attacking an embassy.

By the Constitution the CSA had a right to secede.
Which has no bearing on the Constiution of the USA, which prohibits secession.

By the Constitution the CSA had a right to secede.

The union existed first. If the CSA wanted theirs to supercede the Unions constitution, they would have to forcibly make it so. Secession was a virtual act of war.