NationStates Jolt Archive

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.

Except the 10th Amendment states that powers not delegated to the federal government is delegated to the states. If it's not banned, then it's legal by the Constitution.

Which has no bearing on the Constiution of the USA, which prohibits secession.

I'm talking about the US Constitution, which did not clarify the legality of secession until after the Civil War. You can't take a court decision and then say people 8 years from the past should have known about it.

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.

Actually, Slavery was already on the outs in the Confederate states because it was already not profitable. The greater issue was a series of taxes passed in the 1820's that were being enforced for the first time in the 1850's. Slavery was a side-show, and might not have even become an issue in the war, except that the North needed a 'moral justification' to continue the war after 1st Bull Run, and the Confederate Leadership were dominated by slaveholding petit nobility.
The Emancipation Proclamation had more to do with trying to start a Guerilla Conflict in the Confederate states than freeing slaves.
There were only two states where it was still legal to buy and sell slaves, and no states where it was legal to import new ones by 1860.
In states like Arkansas and Missouri, Slavery wasn't even useful-the wrong climate, you know.

In a way, Slavery was a millstone that kept the Southern states from being able to win the war-they had to divert able-bodys to keeping the darkies down, instead of the front-lines.

CSW, where in the constitution does it make secession illegal? It doesn't. First off, the constitution is a CONTRACT, meant to protect the rights of those in the contract. To the South, the contract was broken. Secondly, the Constitution says that if the right is not expressly given to the Federal Government, it falls to the states. The right/say over Secession was never given to the Federal Government, therefore it fell to the states, which the Southerners excercised.

Sorry Rogue, another problem. There wouldn't have been a Zimmerman Note had Wilson not been helping the Allies against Gerrmany. The Germans already percieved the US as an enemy because of Wilson's idiotic foreign policy. Do you know the quote, "The Enemy of my Enemy is My Friend"? It works both ways. The US helps the Allies, so now the Germans have to consider us an enemy. In 1917 the Zimmerman Note was published. In 1915 we were helping the Allies.

Wow a lotta weirdo's int his thread, lincoln and FDR bad? i dunno, FDR's 4 consecutive terms tells me he did something right, and lincoln was a peace activist, he helped bring an end to civil war. Cant be nothing wrong with that, unless your a southerner. PErsonally, i think Ulyssess S. Grant or Nixon were the worst presidents. And that harrison or whatever, that was there for only a month, but i cant balme him, cant do much in a month.

Slavery was a side-show, and might not have even become an issue in the war, except that the North needed a 'moral justification' to continue the war after 1st Bull Run, and the Confederate Leadership were dominated by slaveholding petit nobility.

Again, the North did not need a moral justification, in fact, they didn't even truly use it. Lincoln offered to let slavery remain legal in exchange for the southern states returning to the Union.

Wow a lotta weirdo's int his thread, lincoln and FDR bad? i dunno, FDR's 4 consecutive terms tells me he did something right, and lincoln was a peace activist, he helped bring an end to civil war. Cant be nothing wrong with that, unless your a southerner. PErsonally, i think Ulyssess S. Grant or Nixon were the worst presidents. And that harrison or whatever, that was there for only a month, but i cant balme him, cant do much in a month.

It's a good thing Harrison died, the stubborn dumbass.

Wow a lotta weirdo's int his thread, lincoln and FDR bad? i dunno, FDR's 4 consecutive terms tells me he did something right, and lincoln was a peace activist, he helped bring an end to civil war. Cant be nothing wrong with that, unless your a southerner. PErsonally, i think Ulyssess S. Grant or Nixon were the worst presidents. And that harrison or whatever, that was there for only a month, but i cant balme him, cant do much in a month.

Lincoln and davis started the civil war, lincoln and davis ended the civil war.

Wow a lotta weirdo's int his thread, lincoln and FDR bad? i dunno, FDR's 4 consecutive terms tells me he did something right, and lincoln was a peace activist, he helped bring an end to civil war. Cant be nothing wrong with that, unless your a southerner. PErsonally, i think Ulyssess S. Grant or Nixon were the worst presidents. And that harrison or whatever, that was there for only a month, but i cant balme him, cant do much in a month.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt was elected four terms in a row not because he did something right, but because the nation was in a time of war, and switching leaders mid-battle is generally not a very smart decision, because the former President, however inept, is most likely better acquainted with and more accustomed to the scenarios accompanying the war. Lincoln, I liked. Ulysses was just involved with the wrong people, and did nothing right or wrong. Nixon was one of the better Presidents we've had, seeing as he got us out of that mess-of-a-war, Vietnam, as well as greatly improved our relationship with China. The only thing he did wrong was trying to protect his political allies during the Watergate scandal, which there is no evidence that he was directly involved in. He resigned because, using discretion that was probably correct, the tapes he would be required to release contained fragile classified information, that was dangerous to release to the American public, and even more dangerous to release to the non-American public.

Wow a lotta weirdo's int his thread, lincoln and FDR bad?
You have no idea how many times lincoln violated the Constitution, suspending habeas corpus, conveniently forgetting states' rights, supressing dissenters, etc.

Wow a lotta weirdo's int his thread, lincoln and FDR bad? i dunno, FDR's 4 consecutive terms tells me he did something right, and lincoln was a peace activist, he helped bring an end to civil war. Cant be nothing wrong with that, unless your a southerner. PErsonally, i think Ulyssess S. Grant or Nixon were the worst presidents. And that harrison or whatever, that was there for only a month, but i cant balme him, cant do much in a month.

You forget how many conservatives are on this board. The starter of the thread stated outright that to think that Bush might be the worst president ever and that Carter probably is. That's perfectly in line with thinking that it was a bad thing to defeat Nazi's and end slavery.

FDR didn't serve 4 consecutive terms...he served 3 then didn't run in the fourth.

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.


Quickly,this isn't true. Although Stalin was totally unprepared for war, thus allowing Hitler to get so deep, even without our help they would still have won. Russia was too big a country for the Blitzkrieg to keep it's element of suprise, the Nazi troops weren't prepared for the sieges that happened as they neared the big cities and were totally unprepared for the winters. Russia is too big a country for quick invasions, which Hitler preferred. Also, because Hitler viewed the Slavs as sub-human, he underestimated their determination and thus was unprepared for Stalingrad, Leningrad ect.

Don't know about worst President, but worse PM for us in recent years was probably Major- didn't do much but what he did do wrecked our economy. Black Tuesday and all that

easy...

The Chimp.

You forget how many conservatives are on this board. The starter of the thread stated outright that to think that Bush might be the worst president ever and that Carter probably is. That's perfectly in line with thinking that it was a bad thing to defeat Nazi's and end slavery.

Let me just clear something up - conservatives are a dying breed on this forum, an infinitesimal minority.
Okay, so we're warmongers that support bringing down all the bad-guys at random and we're pro nazi and pro slavery, both of which were brought down via war? And, for the record, while the author may have had an initial bias, the question did not. Also, he is definately right in saying that Bush is not the worst President we've ever had... there have been many Presidents that were much, much worse if you know anything about the history of American Presidents. I will say in your favor, however, that Carter is not the worst.

FDR didn't serve 4 consecutive terms...he served 3 then didn't run in the fourth.

Wow, I can't believe you even said that - he died in his fourth term. Haven't you even cracked a textbook in the last fifty years?

Quickly,this isn't true. Although Stalin was totally unprepared for war, thus allowing Hitler to get so deep, even without our help they would still have won. Russia was too big a country for the Blitzkrieg to keep it's element of suprise, the Nazi troops weren't prepared for the sieges that happened as they neared the big cities and were totally unprepared for the winters. Russia is too big a country for quick invasions, which Hitler preferred. Also, because Hitler viewed the Slavs as sub-human, he underestimated their determination and thus was unprepared for Stalingrad, Leningrad ect.

Well, the main reason they might have staved off the German army alone, and that's a very remote possibility, wasn't because of underestimation, it was because of the fact that the Russians burned all their stuff before they abandoned it, so Germans couldn't resupply without getting it from back home. Pillaging is no longer an option when all that you have left to pillage is molten housing, molten weaponry, and overly-cooked food.

I think that a lot of people are looking at things in the light they want to see, not as it truly is

FDR got America involved in WW2 after the bombing of Pearl Harbour

LBJ was trying to prevent the spread of communism, as a result of several innaccurate views of communism. A military solution, however, was not feasible.
LBJ was also trying to keep people happy as American buisness had invested a lot of money in VietNam, for several decades. While a lot of that money went into the pockets of the corrupt politians, LBJ wanted to see democracy in S VietNam. He was also smart enough not to run against Nixon

Clinton fucked around. so what? a lot of people do it.

if you want my vote, (and i'll give it to you anyway), i would go with George W Bush.
Americans now have less civil rights than at anythime in history, and there has been a large shift to the right wing

If America wants a dictaitor, they're going the right way about it.

Hitlers Armys, if all had gone onto Russia, would still not,in my opinion, have won. The winter froze them and starved them, and as I said, incidents such as Stalingrad and Leningrad made Blitzkreig impossible there, stopping advance to a standstill. Left alone, I think that the Soviets would have pushed forward a bit and then gone for a truce. If Hitler refused, I think Soviets industry would have started up again and they might have pushed them back.

For the record, i'll also add about WW2

While Germany was able to keep Stalin on the back foot, Stalin became smarter as the war progressed, moving whole weapons factories over the Urals, and listening to his Generals. his army also became more experienced. Russia would have won that front eventually.

Wheather or not that would have meant the war is something else entirely
Germany was engaged in Africa, and had bombing agaist Britan. As well as Italy and France later in the war. Britan and America were on these fronts together

weather the war would have been won without the Americans? maybe. maybe not.

Japanese troops fought mostly British colonial, not American troops.
Once Italy turned against Mussolini, that would have been a huge problem for Hitler.

One thing i can tell you. America did not win that war alone.

(As you can guess, i'm not American. gives a good perspective on things)

Wow a lotta weirdo's int his thread, lincoln and FDR bad? i dunno, FDR's 4 consecutive terms tells me he did something right,

He did something right by being a self-centered ruthless spin doctoring political animal with a cult of personality, that certainly works in winning elections (See posts 203, 209, and 218). Then again, I don't know what I'm talking about, I'm a just a 'weirdo' aren't I? :rolleyes:

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.

I would have not supported Vichy France, stood up against Nazi Germany and Stalin, not have sown the seeds of thieving greedy bureaucracy, given business and people a break so they could feed themselves, not spent so much money and instead use what I already had to feed people instead of having them paint fences, and outlawed lynching and taken down the Jim Crow laws. He was a consummate, ruthless politician and I wouldn't be at all surprised if he had no conscience whatsoever. You are most certainly entitled to your opinon, but I have said strongly that he did not do so.

Also, about Clinton. I do not care that he cheated on his wife- I wouldn't care if he did the family dog regularly. It is an incredibly bad thing to do, but this does not affect my grading of him and I did not mention it when I first posted of him. He is, however, severely overrated as much of his economic policy was the result of previous achievements by Republican presidents, sustained by a Republican congress, and strengthened by the information revolution (Which he helped to destroy by going after Microsoft and not the Enron-type companies.) He also had an incredibly weak, pussyfooting foreign policy with no direction and that was severely underfunded and directionless. Up to this point, I would consider him just a buffoon. What I really don't like about him, though, was how he ignored attacks on American soil, giving OBL the image that he could do whatever he wanted to the US, and Clinton even went after innocent people that hadn't done anything but whom he had completely made up distortions of and had falsely compared to Nazis (Yugoslavia). That is completely unforgivable.

I think that a lot of people are looking at things in the light they want to see, not as it truly is

It's really funny that you should say that...

LBJ was trying to prevent the spread of communism, as a result of several innaccurate views of communism. A military solution, however, was not feasible.

A military solution was completely and utterly feasible, the problem was that the dumbass and other dumbasses before him handled it moronically. If we would have had an aggressive policy instead of a moron policy, Vietnam would have ended quickly, and Ho Chi Minh would have gotten raped in no time. The problem was that we were adhering to a war policy that prevented us from bombing the Ho Chi Minh trail because it was within Cambodia, and also from taking military action on Hanoi, if I remember right, so we just sat there with our thousands of soldiers being periodically raped by vietcong's running into South Vietnam and blasting us.

LBJ was also trying to keep people happy as American buisness had invested a lot of money in VietNam, for several decades. While a lot of that money went into the pockets of the corrupt politians, LBJ wanted to see democracy in S VietNam. He was also smart enough not to run against Nixon

He would have kept people happier had he grown some balls and napalmed the [expletive deleted] out of the Ho Chi Minh trail, like Nixon did.

Clinton fucked around. so what? a lot of people do it.

Okay, like two people in this entire debate have used that as even a partial basis for why he was a dumbass. You can look at some of my past posts, or, what would be better, look at post #203. I forget who it's by.

if you want my vote, (and i'll give it to you anyway), i would go with George W Bush.
Americans now have less civil rights than at anythime in history, and there has been a large shift to the right wing

Obviously you know nothing of past American Presidents if George W. Bush is the worst one you can think of. Hell, his daddy was much worse. If you're going to pick a Republican, go with Hoover, he was a thousand times worse, and if you're going to go with anyone, go with Jimmy Carter or Lyndon B. Johnson, they screwed things up in their day far worse than either of the Bush Presidents ever could.

If America wants a dictaitor, they're going the right way about it.

Right, we're the ones looking at things how we want to see them.

It's really funny that you should say that...



A military solution was completely and utterly feasible, the problem was that the dumbass and other dumbasses before him handled it moronically. If we would have had an aggressive policy instead of a moron policy, Vietnam would have ended quickly, and Ho Chi Minh would have gotten raped in no time. The problem was that we were adhering to a war policy that prevented us from bombing the Ho Chi Minh trail because it was within Cambodia, so we just sat there with our thousands of soldiers being periodically raped by vietcong's running into South Vietnam and blasting us.



He would have kept people happier had he grown some balls and napalmed the [expletive deleted] out of the Ho Chi Minh trail, like Nixon did.

Let's not forget LBJ's utterly retarded rules of engagement, such as an anti-aircraft missile launcher had to be completed before it could be destroyed, an enemy aircraft had to be in the air and 'presenting a threat' before it could be destroyed while its airbase was never to be touched, and that trucks that went off-road weren't open to attack. There are countless more of these stupid ideas that were made so that we would not 'offend' the Soviets.

You can look at some of my past posts, or, what would be better, look at post #203. I forget who it's by.

Me.

Let's not forget LBJ's utterly retarded rules of engagement, such as an anti-aircraft missile launcher had to be completed before it could be destroyed, an enemy aircraft had to be in the air and 'presenting a threat' before it could be destroyed while its airbase was never to be touched, and that trucks that went off-road weren't open to attack. There are countless more of these stupid ideas that were made so that we would not 'offend' the Soviets.

Me.

I knew it started with a "Zeth," just couldn't remember the name, and I was too lazy to look it up. :)

Most presidental historians I have read nominate either Franklin Pierce or James Buchanan as worst president in US history. I happen to agree with them.

I knew it started with a "Zeth," just couldn't remember the name, and I was too lazy to look it up. :)

'Tis ok pal. ;)

Two things said in defense of Carter, who was, overall a terrible president, but is not given credit for the few things he did do right:

1. He spent a lot of time getting non-OPEC countries into the oil-producing business. This helped wreck OPEC as an overwhelming oil cartel. They still had a lot of power, but it was quickly a lot less.

2. Paul Volker, who set the policies Greenspan kept, which broke the American inflation spiral.

Those are both really smart policy decisions, and they both did exactly what they were supposed to do.

Now, back to more important subjects, like packing peanuts and tape!

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

It was a disgusting, horrible practice in the opinion of sane people. Admittedly, my family owned slaves - and I'm a 'darkie', but even I understand it was one of the sickest practices human beings could come up with.

As for the war, both sides used slavery as 'moral justification' to perpetuate their nonsense*, but the underlying cause was what it always is - good-ole fashioned greed. The free labor system of the South threatened the economy of the North, and any restriction (let alone end) to that system threatened the economy of the South.


*Alexander Stephens: “[The Confederacy’s] foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the Negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based on this great physical, philosophical and moral truth.”

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.


I am with you there.

People's gripes against FDR are unfounded because we knew what happened and FDR didn't. He couldn't predict the future. Is that so bad? He planned on Hitler attacking us, not the evil Japs, with their total disregard for human rights and imperialism. How could he have known that Japan will attack Pearl Harbor on Sunday, December seventh, nineteen fourty one at around seven AM? Maybe he thought they would attack Midway or the Phillipines?

The worst is probably do-nothing Hoover or the one before Lincoln.

It was a disgusting, horrible practice in the opinion of sane people. Admittedly, my family owned slaves - and I'm a 'darkie', but even I understand it was one of the sickest practices human beings could come up with.

As for the war, both sides used slavery as 'moral justification' to perpetuate their nonsense*, but the underlying cause was what it always is - good-ole fashioned greed. The free labor system of the South threatened the economy of the North, and any restriction (let alone end) to that system threatened the economy of the South.


*Alexander Stephens: “[The Confederacy’s] foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the Negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based on this great physical, philosophical and moral truth.”

So im not sane? Thanks for insulting me. Honestly, if you cant make an argument without logical fallicies, dont bother.

Clinton was the werse pres. ever. He did nothing.


Here's a really bad joke:

What do Monica Linsky and a pop machine have in common? They both say insert bill here.

People's gripes against FDR are unfounded because we knew what happened and FDR didn't. He couldn't predict the future. Is that so bad? He planned on Hitler attacking us, not the evil Japs, with their total disregard for human rights and imperialism. How could he have known that Japan will attack Pearl Harbor on Sunday, December seventh, nineteen fourty one at around seven AM? Maybe he thought they would attack Midway or the Phillipines?

The worst is probably do-nothing Hoover or the one before Lincoln.

I think there's evidence that FDR knew that war was coming one way or another but he couldn't (unless he'd gotten the declaration of war the way the Japanese hoped he'd get it) possibly predict (as the song from the time goes) where or when.

When he heard news of Pearl his reaction was, "I thought it was the Philippines".

With good reason. The original war plans (Orange) and a 'technothriller' written before the war ('The Great Pacific War' by Hector Bywater) postulated a Jutlandish fleet action between battleships after a Japanese landing in the Philippines. Yamamoto studied this book (the Japanese win half way and even take Hawaii but then are beaten back by the might of American industry - Yamamoto knew this and knew the potential of American industry having served as Naval Attache before the war but I think there was nothing he could do with fanatics like Tojo in power) but when Taranto happened he got a better idea to even out the odds a bit before the war. Unfortunately he botched his choice of commander for the 1st Carrier Strike Force by picking the cautious indecisive Nagumo. Tamon Yamagutchi could have probably been 'the Japanese Halsey' if he'd been in command.

Alright let's take an easy here. The question was who was the worst president. Not who you hated the most.

This is an easy one; William Henry Harrison.

Why?
I think getting into office and dying not even a month later because you can't take care of your own health is a plenty good reason. He wasn't assassinated or anything. He just died of pneumonia.

Keep it simple guys.

i agree...william henry harrison...gives the longest inagural speech ever...in the cold...catches pneumonia...dies a month later....IDIOT!...thats why all the speeches have gotten shorter since.

The 10 worst presidents of all time:

34. James K. Polk
35. Warren G. Harding
36. Jimmy Carter
37. George W. Bush
38. John Q. Adams
39. Herbert Hoover
40. Calvin Coolidge
41. Richard M. Nixon
42. John Adams
43. William Harrison

Obviously you know nothing of past American Presidents if George W. Bush is the worst one you can think of. Hell, his daddy was much worse. If you're going to pick a Republican, go with Hoover, he was a thousand times worse, and if you're going to go with anyone, go with Jimmy Carter or Lyndon B. Johnson, they screwed things up in their day far worse than either of the Bush Presidents ever could.

Ya, What Carter did was terrible. Allowing the Reaganites to undermine our national security by making back door deals with the Iranians... Sickening. He can never be forgiven for not having Reagan and his cohorts shot.

But still, not shooting Reagan isn't quite as bad as being Reagan, so that's kind of a tough call. Oh, and Reagan was a shining beacon of hope compared to Dubya.

LBJ was one of the greatest and worst presidents...

He royally screwed up in Vietnam and that makes him a horrible president, but what makes him great is all the laws he passed to give African-Americans a lot more equality and really pushed for civil rights reform.

I think that a lot of people are looking at things in the light they want to see, not as it truly is

FDR got America involved in WW2 after the bombing of Pearl Harbour

LBJ was trying to prevent the spread of communism, as a result of several innaccurate views of communism. A military solution, however, was not feasible.
LBJ was also trying to keep people happy as American buisness had invested a lot of money in VietNam, for several decades. While a lot of that money went into the pockets of the corrupt politians, LBJ wanted to see democracy in S VietNam. He was also smart enough not to run against Nixon

Clinton fucked around. so what? a lot of people do it.

if you want my vote, (and i'll give it to you anyway), i would go with George W Bush.
Americans now have less civil rights than at anythime in history, and there has been a large shift to the right wing

If America wants a dictaitor, they're going the right way about it.


Wow, I thought I was paranoid. LBJ didn't run, because he'd gotten (materially) everything he wanted-a war that couldn't be brought to an end to finance his 'Great Society', Credit for JFK's work in Civil Rights (JFK pushed the CRA on the congress, but died before he could sign it) and "Out" before his other shenanigans could get him impeached.
If you look at LBJ's record prior to becoming VP, you find that he was about as close to a Communist himself, as a man could get and not be a member (or former member) of the Party. He was also about as dirty as a politician can rationally get-a true Southern Political Infighter in the mold of Huey Long.
If there's any truth to the ideas of Heaven and Hell, and any truth to the concept of Divine Justice, LBJ is in a tiger cage for all of eternity being tortured and forced to watch Jane Fonda work-out-videos.
His intent in getting us into Vietnam, was 'guns and butter' economics-using the war's combined increased produciton, and sponge-for-labor to produce the necessary tax-income to pay for his corruption of Kennedy's self-help programmes.

When LBJ took office, Social Security was running a Surplus (more workers paying into the system, than beneficiaries drawing out of it by a huge margin) By the year 1970, thanks to SSI (paying out early) and increased draws by Congress, it was full not of money, but of IOU's. It's been that way ever since.
This, and the damaging welfare-state, are not FDR's making, but Johnson's. Johnson's administration first came out with a system that punished minority families for having a father, and rewarded illegitimate births. It was Johnson who created a system that could extend into generational dependence and poverty.
He was also responsible for the eventual discrediting of American Military personnel with his ridiculous ROE in Vietnam-american Bombers being sent to pound rice-paddies instead of Truck parks, jungle instead of the docks where the soviets were unloading the weapons being used to kill American soldiers who were likewise being sent to take a hill, then give it back to the enemy.
over-and-over-and-over-again.
It was Johnson who rescinded Kennedy's executive order withdrawing U.S. Troops, then escalated the american presence while introducing impossible-to-achieve rules of engagement.

Warren G. Harding! Did nothing!

Grant but I think his fault was his choice of people for his administration.

In time I think the Shrub will rate as well.

Warren G. Harding created the Teapot-Dome Scandal..then he died..

Warren G. Harding created the Teapot-Dome Scandal..then he died..

Well that should have been "Did nothing of value"

haha..umm yeah he just sat on his ass basicly

haha..umm yeah he just sat on his ass basicly

Well that's not all true.

He did take some time to nail some of his staff! ;)

Who'd win a thumb wrestling match?

HaRrIsOn


or.... :


HaRdInG


?

:headbang: :gundge:

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 "sensible" 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 minor 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.

The 10 worst presidents of all time:

34. James K. Polk
--snip--



And what's your reasoning for Polk to be on this list?

For worst presidents of all time I nominate:

Carter
Lincoln
FDR
Clinton

And what's your reasoning for Polk to be on this list?

His manifest destiny policy was wrong. He was a war monger..he declared war on Mexico. Mexico didn't provoke or present a threat to the USA..They minded their own busniess and they had their own land. It was war about resources and land. For that Polk gets to be on the list...

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

I wouldn't say Hoover was so bad. Hoover genuinely cared about people. The Berlin Airlift was Hoover's idea. The depression may have occurred on his watch, but it was mainly due to systemic weaknesses, not error on his part. I'll have to think about who the "worst" was, though.

His manifest destiny policy was wrong. He was a war monger..he declared war on Mexico. Mexico didn't provoke or present a threat to the USA..They minded their own busniess and they had their own land. It was war about resources and land. For that Polk gets to be on the list...

I don't know where you heard that, but the Mexican Army at the time was in most ways superior to the American Army, better trained with more experience. Who truly 'started' the war is a matter of speculation.

I wouldn't say Hoover was so bas. Hoover genuinely cared about people. The Berlin Airlift was Hoover's idea. The depression may have occurred on his watch, but it was mainly due to systemic weaknesses, not error on his part. I'll have to think about who the "worst" was, though.

True Hoover did some good things, and yes the depression wasn't his fault. But, his response to the depression was "it will fix its self" and that didn't work at all and failed miserably.

I don't know where you heard that, but the Mexican Army at the time was in most ways superior to the American Army, better trained with more experience. Who truly 'started' the war is a matter of speculation.


That has really been doubted. Polk's excuse was that they killed some of our soilders in Texas or near there. Nobody knows for sure what happend and those facts can really be disputed. Them having a superior army isn't a reason to start a war. THen taking all of the south west. He went beyond the line, but thats what I see. You may see something different and may be right. Who really knows what happened there..

L.B. Johnson

Well, I know presidents can be bad, but the rest of the government has to do with the decisions the president makes, so don't weigh it all down on the president.

edit:Damn, I used President a lot.

His manifest destiny policy was wrong. He was a war monger..he declared war on Mexico. Mexico didn't provoke or present a threat to the USA..They minded their own busniess and they had their own land. It was war about resources and land. For that Polk gets to be on the list...
Better wars fought for land and resources, than wars fought for obscure religious dogmas pretending to be Economic systems.

Better wars fought for land and resources, than wars fought for obscure religious dogmas pretending to be Economic systems.

About Mistah Bush Joonyah...

You sure the Bad Guys didn’t win?. Afghanistan is once again the world's largest supplier for heroin. Granted the Taliban was about the worst invention of "culture" ever created by humanity (how they could do so much damage in the name of Islam will never allow me to look at the religion as the "religion of peace"), but their one (and I mean only one) redeeming factor during the 90's was their reduction of the poppy crop to global lows. Now, we have once again massive pipelines – and huge incomes going where?

Are Islamic terrorists really any more deterred since our invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan? Last I heard from reliable US and UN statistics, last year's deaths attributed to terrorist activities was MORE than what occurred in 2001 (WTC included). If anything, the US has been deterred from using rational thought and diplomatic procedure and using "blunt fist" tactics in the face of a hidden and often unrecognizable enemy. We may have disrupted and reformed these two nations, but at what diplomatic cost to our allies in Europe? In what costs to our clout in preventing the development of Iranian and North Korean nuclear arms? At what cost to our economy and political stability?

In historical terms, think of the effects localities had from the British Empire; are South Africa, India, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, or any of the other multitude of nations really more stable or better off than they were beforehand?

South Africa alone – apartheid and highest murder rate in the known world! How did their efforts at local "Democratization" and "Nationalization" (coupled with other Euro nations) really "help" the modern geopolitical scene? Is our intervention really that much different; will it actually break the tried and true cycle of violence seen from such efforts?

I think not. The deterrent is not in the immediacy of the events, but in the long term impacts...

Everyone! DUCK!

About Mistah Bush Joonyah...

You sure the Bad Guys didn’t win?. Afghanistan is once again the world's largest supplier for heroin. Granted the Taliban was about the worst invention of "culture" ever created by humanity (how they could do so much damage in the name of Islam will never allow me to look at the religion as the "religion of peace"), but their one (and I mean only one) redeeming factor during the 90's was their reduction of the poppy crop to global lows. Now, we have once again massive pipelines – and huge incomes going where?

Are Islamic terrorists really any more deterred since our invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan? Last I heard from reliable US and UN statistics, last year's deaths attributed to terrorist activities was MORE than what occurred in 2001 (WTC included). If anything, the US has been deterred from using rational thought and diplomatic procedure and using "blunt fist" tactics in the face of a hidden and often unrecognizable enemy. We may have disrupted and reformed these two nations, but at what diplomatic cost to our allies in Europe? In what costs to our clout in preventing the development of Iranian and North Korean nuclear arms? At what cost to our economy and political stability?

In historical terms, think of the effects localities had from the British Empire; are South Africa, India, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, or any of the other multitude of nations really more stable or better off than they were beforehand?

South Africa alone – apartheid and highest murder rate in the known world! How did their efforts at local "Democratization" and "Nationalization" (coupled with other Euro nations) really "help" the modern geopolitical scene? Is our intervention really that much different; will it actually break the tried and true cycle of violence seen from such efforts?

I think not. The deterrent is not in the immediacy of the events, but in the long term impacts...

Everyone! DUCK!

We're probably going to disagree on this set for eternity. I contend that Terrorism would be rising if the U.S. did it "Diplomatically" just as fast as it is with the invasion. If not faster.

It would also continue to rise if the U.S. Did NOTHING, and if the U.S. turned Isolationist.

There's been forty years of steady increase since 1948 in Islamic Militancy-their successful conquest of Algeria being a prime example of an early 'win' for the forces of darkness.


This conflict-western rationalist civilization vs. Emotion driven absolutist civilization, is an eternal struggle that will not end. The players may change uniforms, or venues, but the game will continue no matter what happens.

The only real change is the bodycounts-which increase along with population densities and improvements in the implements of war.

This is the main reason I find the Patriot Act to be a laughable band-aid and a dangerous development-one not without precedent. "Imperium" has periodically raised its ugly mug in every major civilization-the population gets cowardly enough, and they will grant absolute power to anyone that promises to end the threat once-and-for-all. Marius Sulla, Caius Julius Caesar, Agustus, Tiberius, Nero...Lenin, etc. The Absolute Ruler is forged from the moral and physical Cowardice of the average citizen. You get the leaders you deserve. The only saving grace the Patriot Act had was a time-limit.

If people don't start taking responsibility for themselves and their own safety, they will vote themselves into temporarily comfortable Serfdom. "Temporarily" because once the power is concentrated enough, those holding it no longer need the people's good will, only their fear and coerced consent.

This has tended, historically, to result in the collapse of said Civilization, followed by anarchy-of-the-strong as the Barbarians finish the job.

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

Curious. I believe you are lying.

I have already stated I do not 'hate' George Bush... and I have not revealed any other facts about my 'politics'.

Thus - you are either misguided in your assumptions, or dishonest.

grant

George Washington

[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.

I'm sure someone else will have pointed out many mistakes in this by now... but I have to comment on that second-to-last line.... Lincoln didn't defend a 'democracy' at all... if he defended anything (which I don't believe he did) he defended a 'Republic'.

George Washingtony?

Which has no bearing on the Constiution of the USA, which prohibits secession.

Actually - at that point, there was no law against secession... and (I believe) Texas, for example, still holds the right to secede.

The reason that the economy was so good under Clinton was because of the policy set by Reagan and Bush Sr. The economic problems under Bush Jr. are because of the policy of Clinton. Most people don't understand that the economy doesn't change over night. It takes years for the economy to change and each president has had to live with the economy that his predecessor made.

F.D.R. was without doubt the worst.We're still suffering from his socialist New Deal.He's responsible for the Income Tax, Social security, and creating the Welfare State we have become.

Actually - at that point, there was no law against secession... and (I believe) Texas, for example, still holds the right to secede.


I could be wrong here, but I seem to recall that Texas had the right to secede prior to the Civil War. Texas seceded lawfully and then surrendered that right when it "rejoined" the Union after the Civil War. Anybody know for sure?

Has anyone mentioned Warren G. Harding as the worst President EVER?

Incidentally, he was the first President for whom women voted.

The reason that the economy was so good under Clinton was because of the policy set by Reagan and Bush Sr. The economic problems under Bush Jr. are because of the policy of Clinton. Most people don't understand that the economy doesn't change over night. It takes years for the economy to change and each president has had to live with the economy that his predecessor made.

Not to mention that he had a Republican congress that staved off a lot of his bad economic policies, and the Information boom which occured independently of his watch (Which he managed to destroy by going after useful companies like Microsoft while ignoring Enron and co.) Unfortunately, he managed to get more control of Congress and some of the crappy policies he managed to push in here and there finally took their toll...

I could be wrong here, but I seem to recall that Texas had the right to secede prior to the Civil War. Texas seceded lawfully and then surrendered that right when it "rejoined" the Union after the Civil War. Anybody know for sure?

Not sure.... I thought they maintained that right, and the right to split into smaller regions at a later date, also.

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.

Carter should be punished by scaphism.

You all dont know what u are talking about Bush sucks, Nixon was ahhh,
carter was ok, calling clinton is jsut out a line did u know he is the only presdent to make out national debt go donw during his terms in office and now bush is making them sky rocket agan I tell u we need to stop electing these dumb butt Republicans and dont give me this bull crap about them bing conservitave and waht not they say they save and yet when they get into ofice waht they do spend spend spend, tax breack on rich and raise on poor spend spend spend some more. gosh when will our nation come to there sences and elect a frickn good presadent and get ride of this electoral bull we all know Gore won not Gorge Tush. thats about all I have to say and thats my 2 cents for u all.

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

Imagine if the South was still the Confederacy today. The North and the South would probably have bad relations. And if war ever broke out, imagine real war on our homefront. A really good trilogy about a reversal of the South winning the Civil War and future conflicts is by Harry Turtledove. Start with Guns of the South, its really interesting.

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.

And I posted the refute to the stock market... yes, it was going down. And it was going down in Clinton's term.

Nope, I'm just correcting you. Yes, you did, it was not entirely correct. Yes, it's a fackin' poll. Yes, and I may post my facts to counter your opinions. That's how this works. :rolleyes:

And I posted the refute to the stock market... yes, it was going down. And it was going down in Clinton's term.

Nope, I'm just correcting you. Yes, you did, it was not entirely correct. Yes, it's a fackin' poll. Yes, and I may post my facts to counter your opinions. That's how this works. :rolleyes:


That's right, the stock market took its first significant dip in April of 2000 (prior to the elections), struggled all of summer 2000, and took a real tech induced nosedive in November of 2000 - all prior to the election. Economists started forecasting the market downslide approximately 18 months prior to its occurrance. But I really think that is neither here nor there as the President actually has little to do with the state of the market or economy. These things are historically cyclical.

Not sure.... I thought they maintained that right, and the right to split into smaller regions at a later date, also.

Texas is also the only state that has the right to fly its flag at a height equal to the US flag. I'm sure, however, that many Texans fly the Lone Star above the Stars-n-Stripes.

Has anyone mentioned Warren G. Harding as the worst President EVER?

Incidentally, he was the first President for whom women voted.
*quietly snickers at the implications of that last statement* :p

you know, a lot of europeans are replying to this thread.

So im not sane? Thanks for insulting me. Honestly, if you cant make an argument without logical fallicies, dont bother.

Sorry, but I am not a moral relativist. There is such a thing as right and wrong. Or, as in the case of slavery, a sane (reasonable, marked by sound judgment) and insane (foolish or absurd) practice. Accordingly, I judge people by where they stand.

Imagine if the South was still the Confederacy today. The North and the South would probably have bad relations. And if war ever broke out, imagine real war on our homefront. A really good trilogy about a reversal of the South winning the Civil War and future conflicts is by Harry Turtledove. Start with Guns of the South, its really interesting.


Does it mention anything about Louisiana? Is our heritage and culture destroyed by that of the South? :mad:

Imagine if the South was still the Confederacy today. The North and the South would probably have bad relations. And if war ever broke out, imagine real war on our homefront. A really good trilogy about a reversal of the South winning the Civil War and future conflicts is by Harry Turtledove. Start with Guns of the South, its really interesting.

Just a warning. You will never convince Roach.

I have heard others argue that if they simply were allowed to walk away they would have rejoined.

Sorry, but I am not a moral relativist. There is such a thing as right and wrong. Or, as in the case of slavery, a sane (reasonable, marked by sound judgment) and insane (foolish or absurd) practice. Accordingly, I judge people by where they stand.

Even if you arent a moral relativist, who's to say your belief is the true one? you? Thats a bit arrogant, isnt it?

You want to look at it with sound judgement?

Pro's to keeping slavery:
-Economic bonus which helped the country grow.
--When economics fail to be helpful, slavery would collapse anyways.
-These people got a job that they will quite likely keep for a long time, a job that feeds them, gives them a home, shelters them, etc. Its not as if they are kept in a dungeon and starved.
-Given time, the blacks would have risen up from their station, after the slave trade failed(Which was already happening by the civil war, and after).
-Forcing prohibition divided the nation, in places such as bleeding kansas, etc.

Cons to keeping slavery:
-The blacks don't have a chance to thrive during slavery.
-In some people's eyes, it wasnt moral.

Looking at it with a reasonable eye, keeping slavery was much more reasonable than forcing it to stop. It seems the abolitionists were insane, trying to stop slaverites because they felt it was just wrong.

Has anyone mentioned Warren G. Harding as the worst President EVER?

Incidentally, he was the first President for whom women voted.

Reminds me of that section of America the book.

"Historians debate feverishly over who is the best president in American history. However there is little disagreement over who was the worst. His name was Warren G. Harding (1921 - 1023) and he sucked.

The reasons why he sucked are many and, to be truthful, have been catalouged in the annals of presidental history. So, with your indulgence, I'd like to focus instead on the intensity of his sucking.

Warren G. Harding was a worthless piece of ****. **** him. His presidency was a taint, not just in the sense of a "stain on the office" but literally a taint - the anatomical area between the anus and the testicles.

I hate Warren G. Harding.

Okay, yes, I'm a conservative, and, yes, I'm a little bit biased, but I think Reagan was extremely, extremely far from being the worst president. The man who ended the Cold War, boosted up the economy, and stuck by his beliefs no matter what someone said.

And about Lincoln: He helped us get through the Civil War, won it, reunited the Union. Now, technically, he didn't end slavery, that was the 13th Amendment.

"Historians debate feverishly over who is the best president in American history. However there is little disagreement over who was the worst. His name was Warren G. Harding (1921 - 1023) and he sucked.

The reasons why he sucked are many and, to be truthful, have been catalouged in the annals of presidental history. So, with your indulgence, I'd like to focus instead on the intensity of his sucking.

Warren G. Harding was a worthless piece of ****. **** him. His presidency was a taint, not just in the sense of a "stain on the office" but literally a taint - the anatomical area between the anus and the testicles.

I hate Warren G. Harding.
Sounds like that writer is a really nice guy. And that book sounds very appropriate for children.

Not to mention that he had a Republican congress that staved off a lot of his bad economic policies, and the Information boom which occured independently of his watch (Which he managed to destroy by going after useful companies like Microsoft while ignoring Enron and co.) Unfortunately, he managed to get more control of Congress and some of the crappy policies he managed to push in here and there finally took their toll...

It's really funny to hear republicans talking about economic track records of various presidents.

For 12 years, Reagan and Bush oversaw the biggest deficits in Americas history up to that point, but it was because Carter had a mere 4 years to fuck it up for them. Then it all turned around under Clinton because of the 12 years of debt build up under Reagan and Bush, and now under Bush Jr. it's the worst in history, but it would be worse still if we had kept Gore who learned to manage an economy from Clinton, the guy who oversaw the only economic recovery we've had in the last 25 years.

It seems that Republicans are really the party to vote for, in parrallel universes.

Okay, yes, I'm a conservative, and, yes, I'm a little bit biased, but I think Reagan was extremely, extremely far from being the worst president. The man who ended the Cold War, boosted up the economy, and stuck by his beliefs no matter what someone said.

And about Lincoln: He helped us get through the Civil War, won it, reunited the Union. Now, technically, he didn't end slavery, that was the 13th Amendment.

Reagan didn't end the cold war, gorbachev and the one before him(I friggin always forget his name) did. All reagan did was pour more money into the military, as the USSR collapsed from within.

Even if you arent a moral relativist, who's to say your belief is the true one? you? Thats a bit arrogant, isnt it?

You want to look at it with sound judgement?

Pro's to keeping slavery:
-Economic bonus which helped the country grow.
--When economics fail to be helpful, slavery would collapse anyways.
-These people got a job that they will quite likely keep for a long time, a job that feeds them, gives them a home, shelters them, etc. Its not as if they are kept in a dungeon and starved.
-Given time, the blacks would have risen up from their station, after the slave trade failed(Which was already happening by the civil war, and after).
-Forcing prohibition divided the nation, in places such as bleeding kansas, etc.

Cons to keeping slavery:
-The blacks don't have a chance to thrive during slavery.
-In some people's eyes, it wasnt moral.

Looking at it with a reasonable eye, keeping slavery was much more reasonable than forcing it to stop. It seems the abolitionists were insane, trying to stop slaverites because they felt it was just wrong.


Chellis, you're missing some important points in your defense.

1. Slaves tend to cost more in resources than free men do. The reason is simple: the Owner must first purchase the slave, then, feed him, house him, clothe him, guard him, train him, and maintain his health and welfare. Failure to do this last, means you have to go through all the other steps all over again.

2. (1) is not a one-time price, it's a sustained drain on profitability and a sustained (in the case of American Slavery, Generational) burden on the economic engine. A Plantation is a micromodel of Socialist Totalitarianism-the owner is the ruler, and he is personally responsible for the lives of his chattels, their maintenance, health, and welfare. Failure to maintain the Slaves results in lost work due to illness, reduced capacity due to injury, and general uselessness due to death.
Slaves are further not responsible for themselves, and being unfree, they are unlikely to provide useful innovations that increase productivity or reduce man-hour costs.

3. Slaves must not only be guarded because they will attempt escape, but also because they are expensive properties that may be stolen or damaged by competitors and other unlawful types. Sure, the Police may help the owner, but preventing the initial loss/damage is still the owner's responsibility, and his cost.

Slavery in the United States was economically viable up until England was able to secure Cotton sources from Egypt-at much lower prices. Likewise, technical innovations reduced the number of labourers needed (and the long-term costs, since not so many slaves were necessary), leaving the South's slave-agricultural sector with a much narrower profit-margin by 1850 than it had in 1800. The direction of natural economics was obseleting slavery by the late 1840's, when combined with the Taxes and Trade acts passed to stimulate Northern Industrial development, that profit-margin vanished.
However, the Lordly lifestyle of the Southern Aristocracy (the primary holders of slaves-and no, most Confederate troops did NOT belong to this class) remained-and they wished to preserve it, and believed they could if they had open-access to European markets. (Note: had the war occurred twenty years earlier, the British would have indeed been motivated to support "King Cotton", by 1860 the egyptian fields were well-established. British aid was, therefore, lackluster and more in the vein of screwing with the U.S. than supporting the CSA.)

Slavery is only economically viable with a product that is both scarce, and in high demand, that requires little skilled or motivated labour to produce at low Capital Cost, that can be sold at a high cost. Opium Poppy would be a viable product for a slaveholder culture, provided a means to automate the planting, growing, and harvesting were unavailable, and you managed to hook the upper-classes of several nations on Heroin.

In a modern economic setting (Industrialization, value-added products) Slavery would be an uneconomical means of production. Your Error-rate alone would be enough to kill any economy that relied on it to any great degree.

America has had a lot of Presidents and, with the exception of Ronald Reagan, they've all had their faults. However, I'd say that the three worst Presidents would be Bill Clinton, Thomas Jefferson, and Abraham Lincon, not nessasarily in that order. I think that President Bush has a great foreign policy, the right idea about social security, and has a great stance against terrorism...but he has also gotten the national government involved in State's issues and expanded the national government to much bigger than ever before. I'd say that this balences him out, he's not the best president, but he's also not the worst.

Okay, yes, I'm a conservative, and, yes, I'm a little bit biased, but I think Reagan was extremely, extremely far from being the worst president. The man who ended the Cold War, boosted up the economy, and stuck by his beliefs no matter what someone said.


Whoo-boy, I'm not going to like doing this, as I have no real Quarrels with Raegan. He was a decent President, not really good, but not really damaging(Harding). Time for a History lesson.

Reagan had nothing to do with the fall of the Soviet Union. If you think he "beat" the Soviet Union, you are frankly either A)An idiot B)Horribly Misinformed or C)Don't understand anything about World Events. Choose one that fits you best(I'm hoping for your sake that you choose option B). The Soviet Union was suffering sever internal problem, and a horribly unstable economy. Corruption was probably the worst it has ever been, anywhere, and frankly the USSR went broke. It was funding everything with nothing, with crooked officials stealing what little was left to boot. To even SUGGEST that Reagan had anything to do with the fall of the Soviet Union is to show complete ignorance on this issue. The only effect the US had on the USSR's fall is giving it competetion, thus acting as a possible catalyst. It would even if the US fell off the map-just maybe not as quickly. Reagan was simply the President at the time-it wouldn't have mattered who was President, the USSR would have fallen either way. Hell, even if there was a Communist President, it would have fallen. It was suffering vast interior problems that in no disernable way were effected by the US.

Second, the economy was dropping during Reagan's years. Of course, you fail to realize this. Now, I don't blame this on Reagan. To even suggest that a President has any large effect on the economy is to completely fail to understand Economics. The President has actually almost no control over the economy. Simply put, the Economy dips and falls on a regular basis, with no correlation at all to who is President. Also, Reaganonomics doesn't work. Ask any economist.

Third, there are many things most people don't know. Did you know that he fell asleep at most of his briefings? You know, the important conferences where he was supposed to get information and things like the state of the Union sort of things. Nobody wanted to sit next to him because whoever did had to wake him REPEATEDLY.

On a similar note, he was told by his staff not to talk to the press, not out of bad publicity reasons, but because HE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT WAS GOING ON. This is coming STRAIGHT from his staff's mouths, mind you. They didn't want him to make himself look like an uninformed fool, because he was uninformed.

Remember this, won't you? Reagan wasn't that great. He didn't single handedly overthrow the USSR, he really didn't help the Economy, he didn't know what was going on most of the time.

However, he is far from the worst, I will agree. I would put him in the low-middle to dead center. There are plenty of better "Worst Presidents"

Such as Harding.

America has had a lot of Presidents and, with the exception of Ronald Reagan, they've all had their faults. However, I'd say that the three worst Presidents would be Bill Clinton, Thomas Jefferson, and Abraham Lincon, not nessasarily in that order. I think that President Bush has a great foreign policy, the right idea about social security, and has a great stance against terrorism...but he has also gotten the national government involved in State's issues and expanded the national government to much bigger than ever before. I'd say that this balences him out, he's not the best president, but he's also not the worst.

See above post for faults with Reagan. I respect the man, and don't think he was horrible, just not "TEH GREATEST PREZ EVA!" sort of thing, and he definately wasn't "faultless" or even "nearly faultless". An average President for an average period of time. Ahead of the "Do-nothings" of the late 1800's, definately.

Also, Clinton wasn't THAT bad. He wasn't GREAT, but he wasn't as damaging as, say, Harding. Interesting choice on Jefferson, though. Care to elaborate on to why? Lincoln was overrated, yes. But Worst? I mean, he did alot of things that were pretty bad, but he also did some extraordinarily good things. I'd knock him down considerably, but I'd put him ahead of the "Do-nothing" Presidents of the latter 1800's. And definately ahead of Grant and Harding.

If anyone says Bush, they are either idiots, don't live in America, trolls, or all of the above.

The real worst American president: Warren G. Harding. His entire presidency was one big blot of scandal.

You all dont know what u are talking about Bush sucks, Nixon was ahhh,
carter was ok, calling clinton is jsut out a line did u know he is the only presdent to make out national debt go donw during his terms in office and now bush is making them sky rocket agan I tell u we need to stop electing these dumb butt Republicans and dont give me this bull crap about them bing conservitave and waht not they say they save and yet when they get into ofice waht they do spend spend spend, tax breack on rich and raise on poor spend spend spend some more. gosh when will our nation come to there sences and elect a frickn good presadent and get ride of this electoral bull we all know Gore won not Gorge Tush. thats about all I have to say and thats my 2 cents for u all.

Okay, I don't even know where to start correcting you. Actually, I just lied. I always know where to start correcting people.

1) Clinton did not make the national debt go down during his term. The rate at which it was increasing went down during his administration, the national debt as a percent of GDP decreased, and the national deficit went away due to the massive economic boom we were experiencing - all of which, I might add, began during the transition from the Bush Sr. administration to the Clinton administration, and is largely attributable to the Reagan administration and tech companies. Presidents cannot affect the economy majorly within their time; economic policy takes years to show effect, not to mention the fact that recessions and booms are almost completely out of a President's control. Major events are pretty much the only thing that can happen during a Presidency to instantaneously affect the economy, e.g. World War I, World War II, the end of the Cold War, and the attacks on 9/11. Clinton was also suspiciously tied to over eighty inexplicable politically related deaths throughout the course of his Presidency, and he pardoned numerous criminals (who were completely undeserving of pardon) immediately before he left office. Oh, yeah, and he did let Osama slip out of his fingers on more than one occasion, as well as allowed the Taliban to takeover in Afghanistan late in 1996. And he funded North Korea in the hopes that they would be responsible in their development of nuclear technology. You're right, hating Clinton is totally unfounded. To quote Spottswoode in Team America: World Police:

"Kim Jong Il! What's he doing with terrorists?"

You morons.

2) It got the Patriot Act passed, chased Osama into hiding, took out Saddam Hussein, and is starting to show some backbone to the insane policies of the United Nations - yeah, the Bush administration sure has sucked. :rolleyes: By the way, if you start trying to bash his decision to go into Iraq, I'm going to tear you apart, so don't bother.

3) Nixon improved our relationship with China massively, got our troops out of Vietnam, showed some balls by bombing the [expletive deleted] out of the Ho Chi Minh Trial, which the Vietcongs had been using to rape our troops as long as we adhered to the moronic military policies of his predecessors, Johnson and Kennedy. His Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, was the most brilliant, capable and qualified Secretary of State we have ever had. The only reason he resigned was to protect tapes that would have been forcibly released, which contained countless amounts of classified information, the majority of which would be most positively dangerous in the hands of the global public. Yeah, I guess the Nixon administration was pretty bad, too. :rolleyes:

4) Carter was okay, I suppose, if you exclude the energy crisis that he failed to curb, the massive inflation which he made no attempts to do anything about, his piss poor handling of the hostage situation in Iran, and his spending billions with Brzezinski (I think that's how you spell it, I remember some funky spelling, that could be wrong) to train Islamic fundamentalists, a program which led to the rise of the Taliban.

5) What "tax breack on rich and raise on poor?" The tax break was spread across every economic class, you moron. We make just under thirty thousand a year, and got $840 out of it, so we're happy. The rich were due a tax break, anyway - they are already taxed ridiculous amounts as punishment for being successful.

6) Gore did not win in 2000. Bush took more electoral votes than he did, which, by definition, makes him the legitimate winner, whether the national popular vote favored Gore or not. I'm incredibly happy that Gore didn't win, because if he were President on September 11th, he wouldn't have done jack [expletive deleted], save, perhaps, dropping three or four "strategically placed" bombs in the middle of the [expletive deleted] desert like Clinton did. Or, I know, maybe he would have given money to the Taliban and take them for their word that they wouldn't use it irresponsibly, like Clinton did for North Korea.

You're done talking now, you've just been voted out of this debate. Don't even reply, I'd hate to make you look even less educated than I already have.

How could anyone ever say Clinton was a bad President???

I could see someone calling him an imorral person, but Conservative, Democrat, Socialist, whatever, you have to admit, THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A MORE SUCESSFUL PRESIDENCY

The econamly flourished under Clinton's reign, more Environmental Policies were initiated, and MORE JOBS WERE CREATED THAN ANY OTHER PRECEDENCY!! I just don't see how someone can't say he was bad.

WORST PRESIDENT: George W. Bush

He has

1. Lied to the American People (far worse than Clinton, no one died when Clinton lied)

2. Had a network job loss of over three million (More than any President since Herbert Hoover)

3. Lost Health care for over 25 million people (The grand total now standing at 46 million).

4. And probably the worst HAS PROVIDED THE FEWEST ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES OF ANY LEADER I HAVE EVER HEARD OF

5. Attempted to outlaw several our most precious civil liberties, including the right to die, the right to an abortion, and the right to marry.

I don't think I can think of a worse leader for our country.

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

I agree completely!!! Amen, and thankyou! All those who hate Bush look to his father, your best bud Clinton and hate them, because they've caused a majority of problems that Bush adminstration has acted on cleaning up. You see the problem with the Bush Administration is that they ACT ON THEIR PROMISES!!! UNLIKE EVERY OTHER POLITICIAN! Yes, Bush's policies seem harsh to some, you gotta admit..they're working and at a fast pace, in which others policies have taken years and failed.

in my opinion all US presidents have been horrible, sinister, selfish sick-for-foreign-money, globalisation-idiotic freaks, they have done nothing good for the world and they cant even do good in their own nations, they cant slim down their own people, they cant make their country's sluggish economy grow and worst of all they are very secretive, they keep a lot of secrets from their people (therefore not caring about democracy) they are war lovers and they try to spread democracy and yet they dont have a proper democracy, bush won only because of what happened in Florida which i see as a flaw to democracy.

How could anyone ever say Clinton was a bad President???

I could see someone calling him an imorral person, but Conservative, Democrat, Socialist, whatever, you have to admit, THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A MORE SUCESSFUL PRESIDENCY

The econamly flourished under Clinton's reign, more Environmental Policies were initiated, and MORE JOBS WERE CREATED THAN ANY OTHER PRECEDENCY!! I just don't see how someone can't say he was bad.

WORST PRESIDENT: George W. Bush

He has

1. Lied to the American People (far worse than Clinton, no one died when Clinton lied)

2. Had a network job loss of over three million (More than any President since Herbert Hoover)

3. Lost Health care for over 25 million people (The grand total now standing at 46 million).

4. And probably the worst HAS PROVIDED THE FEWEST ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES OF ANY LEADER I HAVE EVER HEARD OF

5. Attempted to outlaw several our most precious civil liberties, including the right to die, the right to an abortion, and the right to marry.

I don't think I can think of a worse leader for our country.



WOW!! Yea you can beat on Bush, but remember this. These problems started to occur during the Clinton adminstration, and he FAILED TO ACT ON THEM!!! The stock market was already declining, and Clinton did squat! So when Sept. 11 hit, which Clinton had the chance to kill Osama and end Al' Queda but didn't, it was the spark needed to make the stock market fall.

When Clintone lied, no one died..Bull sugar. by Clinton lieing and saying he didn't have sex he tough he did, he now admits it. The teenage pragency rate sky-rocketed..leading to a sky rocketed number of aborotions, and ABORTION IS KILLING!!!! SO BILLIONS DIED WHEN CLINTON LIED!
Also, it makes me sick to think anyone would support the idea of killing innocent children for no reason, aka abortion, and would let some one, functioning or not, starve to death!! IT'S IN-HUMANE!!! If it was an animal all you would've been up in arms, but when it's a human everyone snuffed and said, "oh well, she's of no value." WHAT A GREAT ATROSICTY TO LIFE!!! Life is precious value it! Gay people do deserve benefits I believe, but you can't call it a right to marriage because it has never been called marriage.

Finally, this little thing you said about the defict, Clinton created a new problem for us. It's called Social Security crisis. How? Clinton used the surplus of Social Security to fix the short term problem, the defict, but has now possibly caused millions-billions to lose out on the program called social security.

Plus he disgraced America, made us a laughing stock of the world, and I can't support a man who lied to save his skin, but later admits and sort of pokes fun at the stupidty of Americans for believing him!

CLINTON.....NOT MY PRESIDENT!

Dubya, Reagan and Andrew Jackson.

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

my apologies, I was so heated to repsond that i said the wrong thing, but Clinton is still one of the many worst presidents.

Reagan had nothing to do with the fall of the Soviet Union. If you think he "beat" the Soviet Union, you are frankly either A)An idiot B)Horribly Misinformed or C)Don't understand anything about World Events. Choose one that fits you best(I'm hoping for your sake that you choose option B). The Soviet Union was suffering sever internal problem, and a horribly unstable economy. Corruption was probably the worst it has ever been, anywhere, and frankly the USSR went broke. It was funding everything with nothing, with crooked officials stealing what little was left to boot. To even SUGGEST that Reagan had anything to do with the fall of the Soviet Union is to show complete ignorance on this issue.
Okay, I'm not saying he "beat" the Soviet Union, or that the Soviet Union would never have fallen, but he was greatly responsible for the speed with which it fell - it would more positively still be here today if not for his actions. Anyone who doesn't realize this is either an idiot, misinformed, or doesn't understand anything about world events. For one, the Soviet Union was suffering internal problems from the start - as is, more often than not, the case for nations that arise from large coups. A plethora of corruption existed in Russia long before it was the USSR. It had always been funding everything with nothing, and crooked officials had been stealing from the government since its birth. That's how the Soviet Union worked - it didn't need massive amounts of those things to keep surviving, as, for the most part, it funded its actions on bull[expletive deleted] funds and forced labor. The only thing that would bring it down would be a massive, sudden need for increased funding and increased resources, which is exactly what Reagan caused. By starting the Star Wars program, Reagan made the Soviets think that the United States was within reach of an effective nuclear defense system. If the US discovered such a system, first, then the Soviet Union was [expletive deleted], for lack of a better word. The soviets were forced to go into a spending frenzy that required massive amounts of financial and material resources, which caused the government to collapse, as its system could only fund so much output with its majorly artificial input. That is what Reagan did to speed up the Soviet Union's demise, and he is almost solely responsible for the immediacy of said fall.

The only effect the US had on the USSR's fall is giving it competetion, thus acting as a possible catalyst. It would even if the US fell off the map-just maybe not as quickly.
Exactly - Reagan shortened the life expectancy of the Soviet Union from fifty or so to about five.

Reagan was simply the President at the time-it wouldn't have mattered who was President, the USSR would have fallen either way. Hell, even if there was a Communist President, it would have fallen. It was suffering vast interior problems that in no disernable way were effected by the US.
Bush Sr. was President at the time, buddy. Way to demonstrate your knowledge of soviet history. The Soviet Union was officially dissolved the day after Christmas of 1991.

Second, the economy was dropping during Reagan's years. Of course, you fail to realize this. Now, I don't blame this on Reagan. To even suggest that a President has any large effect on the economy is to completely fail to understand Economics. The President has actually almost no control over the economy. Simply put, the Economy dips and falls on a regular basis, with no correlation at all to who is President. Also, Reaganonomics doesn't work. Ask any economist.
No, the economy during his Presidency was unrelated to him, but with the fall of the Soviet Union, which is almost completely attributable to Reagan, the US was left with an abundance of extra funds that were formerly being spent in competition with the Soviet Union, which allowed for the economic boom in the 1990's. That, and the emergence of major tech companies in the early 90's, led to the economy boom. Anyone with a basic understanding of economics and government budget can tell you that.

Third, there are many things most people don't know. Did you know that he fell asleep at most of his briefings? You know, the important conferences where he was supposed to get information and things like the state of the Union sort of things. Nobody wanted to sit next to him because whoever did had to wake him REPEATEDLY.
If this is even remotely true, and I doubt the validity of this, it was probably because he was suffering from early stages of [expletive deleted] Alzheimer's.

On a similar note, he was told by his staff not to talk to the press, not out of bad publicity reasons, but because HE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT WAS GOING ON. This is coming STRAIGHT from his staff's mouths, mind you. They didn't want him to make himself look like an uninformed fool, because he was uninformed.
Staff members say stuff that isn't true all the time when they dislike their boss. If you read what the staff members who were more supportive of him say, they have completed discredited that, and to believe one side over the other is ignorant.

Remember this, won't you? Reagan wasn't that great. He didn't single handedly overthrow the USSR, he really didn't help the Economy, he didn't know what was going on most of the time.
Well, you were right about... erm... none of that.[/QUOTE]

I realise living in the UK, it isn't my place to say anything about how the USA is run. But looking from a distance, you all seem to be quibbling over mere technicalities.

"Oh no- the stock market started xing X months before! Not Y months!"

Shouldn't a good leader be judged on how well his/her administration led the country in world affairs, whilst taking care of the people?

Chellis, you're missing some important points in your defense.

1. Slaves tend to cost more in resources than free men do. The reason is simple: the Owner must first purchase the slave, then, feed him, house him, clothe him, guard him, train him, and maintain his health and welfare. Failure to do this last, means you have to go through all the other steps all over again.

2. (1) is not a one-time price, it's a sustained drain on profitability and a sustained (in the case of American Slavery, Generational) burden on the economic engine. A Plantation is a micromodel of Socialist Totalitarianism-the owner is the ruler, and he is personally responsible for the lives of his chattels, their maintenance, health, and welfare. Failure to maintain the Slaves results in lost work due to illness, reduced capacity due to injury, and general uselessness due to death.
Slaves are further not responsible for themselves, and being unfree, they are unlikely to provide useful innovations that increase productivity or reduce man-hour costs.

3. Slaves must not only be guarded because they will attempt escape, but also because they are expensive properties that may be stolen or damaged by competitors and other unlawful types. Sure, the Police may help the owner, but preventing the initial loss/damage is still the owner's responsibility, and his cost.

Slavery in the United States was economically viable up until England was able to secure Cotton sources from Egypt-at much lower prices. Likewise, technical innovations reduced the number of labourers needed (and the long-term costs, since not so many slaves were necessary), leaving the South's slave-agricultural sector with a much narrower profit-margin by 1850 than it had in 1800. The direction of natural economics was obseleting slavery by the late 1840's, when combined with the Taxes and Trade acts passed to stimulate Northern Industrial development, that profit-margin vanished.
However, the Lordly lifestyle of the Southern Aristocracy (the primary holders of slaves-and no, most Confederate troops did NOT belong to this class) remained-and they wished to preserve it, and believed they could if they had open-access to European markets. (Note: had the war occurred twenty years earlier, the British would have indeed been motivated to support "King Cotton", by 1860 the egyptian fields were well-established. British aid was, therefore, lackluster and more in the vein of screwing with the U.S. than supporting the CSA.)

Slavery is only economically viable with a product that is both scarce, and in high demand, that requires little skilled or motivated labour to produce at low Capital Cost, that can be sold at a high cost. Opium Poppy would be a viable product for a slaveholder culture, provided a means to automate the planting, growing, and harvesting were unavailable, and you managed to hook the upper-classes of several nations on Heroin.

In a modern economic setting (Industrialization, value-added products) Slavery would be an uneconomical means of production. Your Error-rate alone would be enough to kill any economy that relied on it to any great degree.

All you are doing is agreeing with me. Did you not catch the part where I said slavery would collapse when it became unprofitable?

Finally, this little thing you said about the defict, Clinton created a new problem for us. It's called Social Security crisis. How? Clinton used the surplus of Social Security to fix the short term problem, the defict, but has now possibly caused millions-billions to lose out on the program called social security.

Okay, I really hate to do this, as I loathe the guy, but I have to defend Clinton on this one. He was doing his best to save Social Security, and he is one of the few Democratic politicians that would admit Social Security was on the outs early-on.

By the way, for those Democrats that are following their politician buddies in trying to shoot-down the Republican social security legislation, know this. What you don't realize when watching CNN and NBC is that the numbers showing social security's massive decrease in return are extremely skewed. One, they are normally the numbers used to describe a preliminary draft of another social security bill put out before the most recent one. Two, which is better: losing 10-50% of your social security benefits, depending on what bracket you're in, or losing all of your social security benefits? Something needs to be done, and until the Democrats in congress come up with a better idea, this is our best bet at saving social security at all.

By the way, Seangolia, don't miss post 350. I would also refer you to posts 203, 209 and 218, if I remember right. Great posts, almost wholly statistical and factual.

Okay, I really hate to do this, as I loathe the guy, but I have to defend Clinton on this one. He was doing his best to save Social Security, and he is one of the few Democratic politicians that would admit Social Security was on the outs early-on.

By the way, for those Democrats that are following their politician buddies in trying to shoot-down the Republican social security legislation, know this. What you don't realize when watching CNN and NBC is that the numbers showing social security's massive decrease in return are extremely skewed. One, they are normally the numbers used to describe a preliminary draft of another social security bill put out before the most recent one. Two, which is better: losing 10-50% of your social security benefits, depending on what bracket you're in, or losing all of your social security benefits? Something needs to be done, and until the Democrats in congress come up with a better idea, this is our best bet at saving social security at all.

By the way, Seangolia, don't miss post 350. I would also refer you to posts 203, 209 and 218, if I remember right. Great posts, almost wholly statistical and factual.

We have decades before benefits start decreasing. Bush wants to be the one who saves SS so bad, and it scares me that he cares more about his own glory than the welfare of the state. I say give it more time, see if better ideas come into play.

I am English and think that apart from Vietnam, LBJ was preety good and it was that one mistake (huge though it was) that cost his reputation.

Jefferson Davis.

Yeah he was American, but that's stretching it. He was the President of the Confederate States of America..so technically yea you have a point, but you know what were really talking about..

hehe good choice though :)

We have decades before benefits start decreasing. Bush wants to be the one who saves SS so bad, and it scares me that he cares more about his own glory than the welfare of the state. I say give it more time, see if better ideas come into play.

What scares me is the fact that Democratic senators and representatives want to keep the Republicans from being credited with doing something great more than they want social security to be saved and restored. The only reason that they are not fully supportive of this bill is that it was proposed by the Republicans - if a Democratic senator had proposed this bill, they'd be backing the hell out of it.

Of course, I will admit that it goes both ways. If a Democrat had proposed this, the Democrats would be advocating it and the Republicans would be bashing it vehemently. Politicians are sad, sad, people, but that doesn't change the fact that this legislation is our best bet at saving Social Security.

I am English and think that apart from Vietnam, LBJ was preety good and it was that one mistake (huge though it was) that cost his reputation.

Indeed, its fun to watch people lament him when he did so much for civil rights. JFK was nearly as much to blame for vietnam, or at least getting into it, and Eisenhower could have nipped the problem in the bud by lending support at Dien Bien Phu. Did I forget to mention what a bad president Ike was?

Chellis,

many believed that Kennedy before he was assassinated was working to get the troops out of Vietnam. While many others argue he was trying to escalate it. His actions weren't clear in what he attempted to do. Personally, I think he was trying to de-escalate the quagmire in Vietnam.

But, I don't know for sure.

What scares me is the fact that Democratic senators and representatives want to keep the Republicans from being credited with doing something great more than they want social security to be saved and restored. The only reason that they are not fully supportive of this bill is that it was proposed by the Republicans - if a Democratic senator had proposed this bill, they'd be backing the hell out of it.

Of course, I will admit that it goes both ways. If a Democrat had proposed this, the Democrats would be advocating it and the Republicans would be bashing it vehemently. Politicians are sad, sad, people, but that doesn't change the fact that this legislation is our best bet at saving Social Security.

Our best bet of our options this moment. This isnt something that should be jumped into lightly. Hell, I would be fine with signing something that effectively says the thing can be passed on september 30th, 2008, if bush wants it so bad. I just want other options brought up first.

Chellis,

many believed that Kennedy before he was assassinated was working to get the troops out of Vietnam. While many others argue he was trying to escalate it. His actions weren't clear in what he attempted to do. Personally, I think he was trying to de-escalate the quagmire in Vietnam.

But, I don't know for sure.

Intent and actions are two different things. LBJ didnt want to hinder the war effort, he didnt want to lose it. But he did. As JFK did get us into Vietnam. As Eisenhower didn't invoke Operation Vulture(if I remember the name right).

I wonder what would have happened if Kennedy, LBJ, and all listened to the wise George F. Kennan who predicted that the cold war would have such an outcome if they didn't follow his guidelines and they didn't. Read his "long-telegram" it makes you wonder how much better the cold war would have been handled if he were in charge.

I wonder what would have happened if Kennedy, LBJ, and all listened to the wise George F. Kennan who predicted that the cold war would have such an outcome if they didn't follow his guidelines and they didn't. Read his "long-telegram" it makes you wonder how much better the cold war would have been handled if he were in charge.

What are you going on about? The US did follow Kennan's advice. Containment and Domino Theory were Kennan's beliefs, which was the US cold war ideology.

Our best bet of our options this moment. This isnt something that should be jumped into lightly. Hell, I would be fine with signing something that effectively says the thing can be passed on september 30th, 2008, if bush wants it so bad. I just want other options brought up first.

Laws aren't set into stone. If an option that were truly better comes up soon, this law can easily be replaced. The fact is that the Democratic senators just don't want Republicans getting credit for saving social security; especially not Bush Republicans, who've they've tried to paint as unbelievably stupid and void of any good ideas.

Remember, Seangolia, don't miss post 350.

I'd have to say that Nixon was awful, and Johnson was pretty crappy for obvious reasons. The two non-memorables from Ohio, Grant and Harding were both in charge of incredibly corrupt administrations, even if they weren't all that corrupt themselves. FDR, espescially during his early years is not all that good in my opinion. The New Deal didn't do anything real for the economy, it just gave people hope. He does get props for his behavior during WWII though. Jackson isn't that cool in my opinion, disregarding the US Supreme Court and all.

Bush is nowhere near the crappiness of these presidents, even if he is crappy.

1. Lied to the American People (far worse than Clinton, no one died when Clinton lied)

Uh, what? Bush didn't lie, practically every other nation and the UN said that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Slick Willy also bombed Iraq because of WMD (Which is a point conveniently forgotten by liberals). What about when he lied about rape camps and mass graves and all the other unsubstantiated, unproved BS in Kosovo. What about when he was lying by screeching "HITLER HITLER HITLER NAZI NAZI NAZI HOLOCAUST NAZI HITLER!" incessantly to demonize the Serbians so he could get away with blasting the crap out of innocent Serb civilians? After this, he even left the Serbian Kosovars, who were the original people in the area, at the mercy of land hungry Albanian illegal immigrants.

So, in conclusion, people actually DID die and are continuing to suffer because Clinton lied.

Uh, what? Bush didn't lie, practically every other nation and the UN said that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Slick Willy also bombed Iraq because of WMD (Which is a point conveniently forgotten by liberals). What about when he lied about rape camps and mass graves and all the other BS in Kosovo and screeched "HITLER HITLER HITLER NAZI NAZI NAZI HOLOCAUST NAZI HITLER!" incessantly to demonize the Serbians so he could get away with blasting the crap out of innocent Serbian civilians, then leave the Serbian Kosovars, who were the original people in the area, at the mercy of land hungry Albanian illegal immigrants? People actually DID die and are continuing to suffer because Clinton lied.

:rolleyes:

What are you going on about? The US did follow Kennan's advice. Containment and Domino Theory were Kennan's beliefs, which was the US cold war ideology.
Kennan advocated a more flexible containment than what was followed post-Korean War. Kennan's less militarized version (had other options besides using the military to push back) was followed basically until the Korean War kicked off by the DPRK.

At which point the US took up a policy that was written in the days immediately after the start of the war. The policy was outlined in NSC-68 (which stayed classified until the mid-seventies,) and the chief chief author was Paul Nitze. Build a physical alliance structure around the Soviets, and beat them in the military race. Eisenhower drifted away from this with his extreme emphasis on nuclear weapons and instant retaliation.

Kennan also became increasingly radical as time grew on, eventually advocating a complete withdrawal by both sides from Central Europe, and making Europe a nuke-free zone and stuff. The only problem was that the Soviets would have had to do the same thing, and giving up power was not something the USSR would do very easily.

:rolleyes:
I'm not advocating the Bush point of view, but just giving a friendly reminder:

"Many of the truths we cling to, depend upon our point of view."

Uh, what? Bush didn't lie, practically every other nation and the UN said that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Slick Willy also bombed Iraq because of WMD (Which is a point conveniently forgotten by liberals). What about when he lied about rape camps and mass graves and all the other BS in Kosovo and screeched "HITLER HITLER HITLER NAZI NAZI NAZI HOLOCAUST NAZI HITLER!" incessantly to demonize the Serbians so he could get away with blasting the crap out of innocent Serbian civilians, then leave the Serbian Kosovars, who were the original people in the area, at the mercy of land hungry Albanian illegal immigrants? People actually DID die and are continuing to suffer because Clinton lied.

Oh gawd blame Clinton.

And where did the other nations probably get their intel?

Where do you have proof that Clinton said there were no rape camps or mass graves?

:rolleyes:

Well, I'm sorry, but they never found anything to substantiate his claims. No mass graves, no rape camps, nothing. So why is it that this is conveniently forgotten but Bush II is accused of lying?

Well, I'm sorry, but they never found anything to substantiate his claims. No mass graves, no rape camps, nothing. So why is it that this is conveniently forgotten but Bush II is accused of lying?

Pssst hey buddy. Google is your friend or enemy in your case.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/473017.stm

I realise living in the UK, it isn't my place to say anything about how the USA is run. But looking from a distance, you all seem to be quibbling over mere technicalities.

"Oh no- the stock market started xing X months before! Not Y months!"

Shouldn't a good leader be judged on how well his/her administration led the country in world affairs, whilst taking care of the people?

Pretty smart Brit, as far as your principals are concerned. I agree, the stock market xing X months before, not Y months, is a relatively pointless argument, as economies are affected very, very little by a President during his Presidency, but, in fact, long after. I also agree that a good leader should be judged more on foreign affairs than intranational affairs, but that still leaves vast room for disagreement.

For instance, some people see the War in Iraq as a good thing, because Saddam was a son of a bitch that had shown he was willing to use biochemical weaponry on people, even his own, and M6 and Russian Intel told the US that's what he had. He was also largely involved with terrorist organizations and activities, for instance he was an avid supporter of Hezbollah, and donated thousands to the families of suicide bombers in Palestine. I won't even go into the disgusting personal habits he and his sons had. Or they just love the guy and agree with everything he does.

Others consider the War in Iraq a bad thing, either because they feel it was rushed, they don't believe Saddam was any worse than other dictators out there, or they believe that he fabricated the entire case against Iraq and lied intentionally about the existance of weapons of mass destruction. Or they just hate the guy and disagree with everything he does.

Oh gawd blame Clinton.

And where did the other nations probably get their intel?

Where do you have proof that Clinton said there were no rape camps or mass graves?

According to the International Camp Tribunal in The Hague. Not to mention a Spanish team that investigated Serbia for any alleged mass graves and executions, which only found a number of separate graves in an alleged area with no evidence of mass execution. Not a single cadaver was found in Trepca, Djakovica, and Izbica. Only seven bodies found near Pec, of 350 bodies claimed.

They probably knew because Iraq had used gas on the Kurds, and there was no reason it would just disappear. Plus, Saddam Hussein, when he surrendered, said he would dispose of WMD, and the inspectors were sent not to FIND WMD, but to MAKE SURE he was disposing of it.

Wait, I thought you said where was his source that said where did he say there were rape camps or mass graves, not that there wasn't.

Pssst hey buddy. Google is your friend or enemy in your case.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/473017.stm

Considering that the BBC also ran a pro-Albanian story claiming that it was the Albanian's lands because it belonged to some "Greater Illyria" or somesuch BS, which never existed, I would say that this isn't true, and that the actual professional investigators did a better job than they did.

I'd have to say that Nixon was awful, and Johnson was pretty crappy for obvious reasons. The two non-memorables from Ohio, Grant and Harding were both in charge of incredibly corrupt administrations, even if they weren't all that corrupt themselves. FDR, espescially during his early years is not all that good in my opinion. The New Deal didn't do anything real for the economy, it just gave people hope. He does get props for his behavior during WWII though. Jackson isn't that cool in my opinion, disregarding the US Supreme Court and all.

Bush is nowhere near the crappiness of these presidents, even if he is crappy.

One of the things you said is wrong, and one I would be inclined to disagree with.

1) Nixon was hardly awful. He improved our relations with China and pulled almost all of our troops out of Vietnam. He also ignored the ridiculously stupid military policy adhered to by his predecessors - you know, the one that said the U.S. couldn't cross into Cambodia and aggress on the Vietcongs while they were on the Ho Chi Minh Trail; the one that said we couldn't attack Hanoi, thus prompting the Vietcongs to stash all their reinforcements and supplies there and periodically rape us by darting into South Vietnam via the Ho Chi Minh trail and then retreating to where we couldn't attack them - and grew some balls, finally bombing the living [expletive deleted] out of the Ho Chi Minh Trail in Cambodia. And the Secretary of State he chose was the most brilliant and qualified Secretary of State that we've ever had in the entirety of United States history: Henry Kissinger. The only reason he had to resign was because he refused to release the tapes that they had recorded, as they almost positively held classified information on them that could have been disastrous in the hands of the public at the time.

2) FDR was an idiot as far as WWII was concerned. We should have joined WWII when it started, not waited two years for the battle to come to us, which anyone intelligent knew it inevitably would. If he would have ignored the stupid isolationist morons that were the American majority at the time, grown some balls, and went into WWII early, it would have ended dramatically sooner and cost less lives on every side.

Considering that the BBC also ran a pro-Albanian story claiming that it was the Albanian's lands because it belonged to some "Greater Illyria" or somesuch BS, which never existed, I would say that this isn't true, and that the actual professional investigators did a better job than they did.

Ahh ok.

Now I get to ask where are you from?

Also, for the record, I have no fondness for Milosevic. He is a monster and a war criminal and deserves to hang. What I do disagree with is what Clinton lied about and how he devastated the indigenous Serbians in that area.

Ahh ok.

Now I get to ask where are you from?

The US, but I have a lot of Slavic blood.

Clinton Rocked.
REGAN

sucked.
Why? While all those presidents sucked. Regan taught the world that national deficits doesn't matter. Which is downright fucking wrong.

2) FDR was an idiot as far as WWII was concerned. We should have joined WWII when it started, not waited two years for the battle to come to us, which anyone intelligent knew it inevitably would. If he would have ignored the stupid isolationist morons that were the American majority at the time, grown some balls, and went into WWII early, it would have ended dramatically sooner and cost less lives on every side.

Well for one thing the US was in position to handle a shooting war. The airforce was tiny and old. The navy was small. The army was small and ill-equipped.

Let's not forget the people weren't for it at all. If the people weren't going to go for war, then you can bet the Senate wouldn't go for it.

Clinton Rocked.
Look at posts and 203 & 343.
REGAN

sucked.
Why? While all those presidents sucked. Regan taught the world that national deficits doesn't matter. Which is downright fucking wrong.
Look at post 350.

Moron.

I'm sorry some people are so liberal to say that Lincoln, the Savior of the Union, was a horrible president. In my opinion, the following were terrible presidents (not in order):

-Andrew Johnson (D, 1865-1869) {So much for reconstruction...
-James E. Carter Jr. (D, 1977-1981) {Foreign & Domestic Policy
-William J. Clinton (D, 1993-2001) {"I did not have sex with that woman" Nothing like lying to the nation..., scandals
-Lyndon B. Johnson (D, 1963-1969) {Great Society my ass
-John F. Kennedy (D, 1961-1963) {Happy Birthday, Mr. President...
-Richard M. Nixon (R, 1969-1974) {Watergate
-Franklin D. Roosevelt (D, 1933-1945) {4 terms (power hungry?), socialist
-William H. Taft (R, 1909-1913) {So much for Teddy's new national parks...
-Harry S. Truman (D, 1945-1953) {You're fired, MacArthur
-Woodrow Wilson (D, 1913-1921) {Neutrality my ass

Note: I've studied Harding's administration. His administration was corrupt, but no proof has been brought forward that proves he was corrupt, along w/ Grant.

ARE YOU KIDDING ME!!!:headbang: CLINTON IS NOT ONE OF THE WORST. Yeah he had a problem but he did a lot of good. GW is not THE worst but he is close.

The next person to say FDR was a bad president should go live in the street. If it weren't for him there would be so many fewer government jobs (or jobs in general), there would be no GI Bill which means that those soldiers coming home from WWII wouldn't have gone to college. I could go on and on. Reagan was the worst, almost bankrupted the US economy just to get the credit for defeating communism. Good riddance to him now that he's dead.

Well for one thing the US was in position to handle a shooting war. The airforce was tiny and old. The navy was small. The army was small and ill-equipped.

Let's not forget the people weren't for it at all. If the people weren't going to go for war, then you can bet the Senate wouldn't go for it.

I didn't forget the people weren't in it - I mentioned that. The people aren't President... they elect the President to make the tough decisions for them. FDR should have had some balls in the situation. And if we were already six months into the war, congress would have gone for it - and that's how long a President can enter war without congressional approval.

The next person to say FDR was a bad president should go live in the street. If it weren't for him there would be so many fewer government jobs (or jobs in general), there would be no GI Bill which means that those soldiers coming home from WWII wouldn't have gone to college. I could go on and on. Reagan was the worst, almost bankrupted the US economy just to get the credit for defeating communism. Good riddance to him now that he's dead.

You're a moron. Look at post 350.

I'm sorry some people are so liberal to say that Lincoln, the Savior of the Union, was a horrible president. In my opinion, the following were terrible presidents (not in order):

-Andrew Johnson (D, 1865-1869) {So much for reconstruction...
-James E. Carter Jr. (D, 1977-1981) {Foreign & Domestic Policy
-William J. Clinton (D, 1993-2001) {"I did not have sex with that woman" Nothing like lying to the nation..., scandals
-Lyndon B. Johnson (D, 1963-1969) {Great Society my ass
-John F. Kennedy (D, 1961-1963) {Happy Birthday, Mr. President...
-Richard M. Nixon (R, 1969-1974) {Watergate
-Franklin D. Roosevelt (D, 1933-1945) {4 terms (power hungry?), socialist
-William H. Taft (R, 1909-1913) {So much for Teddy's new national parks...
-Harry S. Truman (D, 1945-1953) {You're fired, MacArthur
-Woodrow Wilson (D, 1913-1921) {Neutrality my ass

Note: I've studied Harding's administration. His administration was corrupt, but no proof has been brought forward that proves he was corrupt, along w/ Grant.

How exactly was truman one of the worst? He fired MacArthur because he went over the head of the president, denounced him, and was calling for the nuking of china during the korean war. If thats not short-sighted and contemptuous(sp?) on MacArthurs part, I dont know what is.

Nixon and Bush Jr.

You're a moron. Look at post 350.

While your at it, look at 203, 218, and 378 to see why people are saying FDR wasn't a very good President before you voice your ignorant opinion.

Martin Van Buren :P
Man that guy was wierd.

Killed Alexander Hamilton? Yeah
but he was only vice president

Nixon and Bush Jr.

Gee, you're not basing that on party affiliation, at all.

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

Embargo of 1807*

Maybe you were thinking Alien and Sedition Acts? However, I agree, his complete embargo on foreign goods was a bad decision. I don't think he was the worst President ever, though.

Look at posts and 203 & 343.

Look at post 350.

Moron.

Just because it was in a post doesn't mean it isn't bullshit. And his complaint was that he created the biggest deficit in our nations history with Voodoo economics. Care to take a guess who invented that term to describe Reagan's economic policies?

George Bush.

Even if you think that we beat the USSR by buying enough Nukes to blow up the world 50 times so that they'd have to buy enough to blow it up 51 times, he should still have had the money to pay for it. Instead he told the public "we're going to lower taxes AND pay off the national debt." I'd exclaim bullshit, but you already know the deficits that we racked up under Reagan, Bush and Junior.

You want to know why prayer has such influence in modern Republican politics? Because it's all that's keeping our economy going when they're in charge.

FDR is the worst for advocating national socialism and for prolonging the great depression.

the worst president of all time was easily Buccanon (the president before lincoln) (hope i spelled his name right)
The states were making efforts to leave the US and by the time Lincoln was inaugurated and could do something, they were gone. Buccanon was voted out but could still have make a peaceful effort to avoid war and didn't. He did nothing else of importance in his term.

Embargo of 1807*

Maybe you were thinking Alien and Sedition Acts? However, I agree, his complete embargo on foreign goods was a bad decision. I don't think he was the worst President ever, though.

Ya. It may have been bad for the economy, but last time I checked, he didn't rack up multi-trillion dollar debts. Even adjusted downward for inflation.

Killed Alexander Hamilton? Yeah
but he was only vice president

Wasnt he the President during the Panic of 1837? I think he was. But the Panic wasn't his fault, it was Andrew Jackson's "war" on Biddle's National Bank..

FDR is the worst for advocating national socialism and for prolonging the great depression.

Why don't you say what you mean?

You hate him for kicking the Nazi's asses.

Ya. It may have been bad for the economy, but last time I checked, he didn't rack up multi-trillion dollar debts. Even adjusted downward for inflation.

A trillion dollars didn't exist then. It lessened national debt, because we weren't trading internationally...but it weakened the economy. It only got better after the War of 1812.

Nixon and Bush Jr.

Actually Nixon wasn't bad. He at least opened relations with China drastically. Sure, he was a crazy bastard, and paranoid to boot, think he was above the law and all. But was hardly the worst.

Once again, loud and clear:

Harding and Grant.

The best answer: Waren G. Harding.

EDIT: I agree with the guy above me. Nixon is underrated.

Killed Alexander Hamilton? Yeah
but he was only vice president

That was Aaron Burr. Martin van Buren was a different person.

[QUOTE=kingladin]
I'm sorry some people are so liberal to say that Lincoln, the Savior of the Union, was a horrible president. In my opinion, the following were terrible presidents
QUOTE]

Lincoln was hardly a savior of anything. I could rant on about all the things he did, but instead I suggest that you look into learning some history besides what you are fed in government schools.

I'm sorry some people are so liberal to say that Lincoln, the Savior of the Union, was a horrible president. In my opinion, the following were terrible presidents (not in order):

What the hell are you smoking? Since when do liberals not like Lincoln? If anything it's conservatives these days who are complaining that slavery would have ended without him and that he was wrong to invade the south. Isn't it southern conservatives who still call the Civil War the War of Northern Aggresion?

When we say that today's Republicans are not the party of Lincoln we're not saying that Lincoln advocated an overly generous social welfare policy.

I am not going to put a pin on worst president but I will say that the current one should be concidered one hell of a good president.

one of the earlier replys said that the forign policy sucked.
it's not as bad as you might think. do the research.

domestic policy sucks.
only to liberals. conservitives actually know what domestic policy is...

I think that this president is great because he has stood up for what he believes is right, as do I and most of the military people I know, while every democrat in this country and every socilist/comunist bastard (no ofence) has bitched about how bad this war is. sure I don't like war but this war is actually doing good for people in the middle east and it's protecting us from another 9/11.

terrorist bastards :mp5: :sniper: btw, God Bless America!

FDR is the worst for advocating national socialism and for prolonging the great depression.

In the wise words of Ace Ventura...

Re-he-healllllly!

I feel that most people are trying to base their decisions on current events. 1930's and the 1940's were VASTLY different than now. Principles which work now probably wouldn't work then, and vice versa. Frankly, if action wouldn't have been taken, the Depression likely would have gotten worse. Remember: Hoover's "Let it fix itself" idea on the Great Depression only made things worse. If FDR had done nothing, frankly, the Depression would have likely continued. The time was so vastly different than now, that to even think that a principle which works today would work then would be asanine. Also, he was able to stabilize the economy. Although, this would not have gone on forever, it didn't need to. THANKFULLY, we were attacked by Japan, and Germany DECLARED WAR ON US. I know there are people going "WTF, Mate?", but let me explain. You see, without this, we would never have gotten out of the depression. This attack opened up industries, and mobilized people across the nation. Pretty much everybody pitched in for the effort, and pretty much everybody had a job(Most women did to). This gave the jumpstart to the economy that it needed.

[QUOTE=kingladin]
I'm sorry some people are so liberal to say that Lincoln, the Savior of the Union, was a horrible president. In my opinion, the following were terrible presidents
QUOTE]

Lincoln was hardly a savior of anything. I could rant on about all the things he did, but instead I suggest that you look into learning some history besides what you are fed in government schools.

Versus the Southern version of what things "really" are?

i'm still wondering if we are missing a few of the finer points of Lincoln. I think he is mentioned in this thread a little too often to go undefended:

He did not start the civil war. In fact, South Carolina was going to suceed from the union if any Northern president was elected (they had carried very nearly all presidential elections in the past)

As for states rights... I'm still not convinced that it was really ever an issue by itself. Sure, that's where you get your rhetoric- all pro-slavery speeches were in the name of state's rights. You still get that (the civil war was never about slavery...) but "State's Rights" really seemed to mean the maintenence and expansion of slavery. I mean, Jeez! can't we draw the line Somewhere?
And Lincoln wasn't really out to end slavery. He Wanted it to happen, but he did not think he could, until all the pro-slave congressmen went home to start a war.
So he did institute a draft. And he did extend habius corpus (but it was written into the constitution) at the time, he was so criticized for it that other presidents dared not follow.

His plan for the south was better, too. He was merely murdered before he could really shine in times of peace.

oh, and i took history in Louisiana. I just looked beyond what my pro-kkk teacher was telling me.

NS,

this president has passed the Patriot Act. A law that is far worse then what President John Adams and Preident Woodrow Wilson passed with their alien and sedition acts in 1800 and in 1917. President Bush LIED (you know he did..he said many times that there was WMD's in Iraq...BULL SHITz F- HIM LYING SACK OF SHITz)...He has lost the most jobs since Hoover. FREAKING HOOVER!!! Hoover was the president that lost the jobs during the depression. Deficts are growing. Thousands of innocent Iraqis dying and many of our soilders dying. Prisoner abuse. 9-11 hasen't increased terriosts attacks the threat before and after were the same. I don't hate Bush, but he has royally screwed up things. I rather me a commie then a facist like you. There is nothing wrong with socialism its a lot more caring for the people then what Bush advocates.

If this war was for democracy and to fight terriosm (Which the 9-11 Commision found otherwise)..why not the Saudia Arabians where most terriosts are from. Syria, N. Korea, the countries that are supporting terriosm and have nuclear capablity?? Oh wait Bush and the Saudis are friends..

I didn't forget the people weren't in it - I mentioned that. The people aren't President... they elect the President to make the tough decisions for them. FDR should have had some balls in the situation. And if we were already six months into the war, congress would have gone for it - and that's how long a President can enter war without congressional approval.

Ok where you get the troops? A bunch were in the Pacific. The ones in the states were ill equipped and questionably trained.

If he had the "balls" and got us in the war when people were against the idea, what would have happened to him and our involvement after the casualities mounted?

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

It doesnt matter what's done is done and Israel has been created and Carter managing to negotiate a peace treaty between Israel and Egypt was unbelievable.

Also Grant was by far the worst president of all time because for every waking breathing moment of his presidency there were scandals. Sure maybe Nixon's scandal was big but he did at least one positive thing in his presidency as with any other president. There was absolutely nothing positive whatsoever in Grant's presidency and thus he becomes the worst president of all time

The best answer: Waren G. Harding.

EDIT: I agree with the guy above me. Nixon is underrated.

It's interesting that most people haven't heard of Harding. The reason, likely, is that since he was during a fairly calm and unturbulent period, nobody really remembers him for much(Which, I suppose is a good thing, as he did nothing good at all).

If Nixon hadn't been in the scandal, he probably would rated likely in the top 15, if not 10. However, we can't change history, and he pretty much killed himself by taping everything, including strategy talks of how to make his opponents look bad, racist statements made especially towards Jewish people, and above all else, the scandal.

While on the subject of Nixon, I gotta point out his rather sophomoric ways of making his opponents look bad. One of his favorites was to hire a prostitute to knock on the person's door. A photographer would be waiting, and when the person opened the door, the girl would throw herself on him, the photographer would take a picture, bota-bing bota-boom, we have an opposer out of the way.

He really doesn't deserve to be rated as one of the worst, though.

Zachary Taylor was garbage

FDR and the other New Dealers believe in this statement by Benito Mussolini:

"Economic initiatives cannot be left to the arbitrary decisions of private, individual interests. Open competition, if not wisely directed and restricted, actually destroys wealth instaed of creating it. The proper function of the State in the Fascist system is that of supervising, regulating, and arbitrating the relationships of capital and labor....More important then the production of wealth is its right destribution, distribution which must benefit in the best possible way all classes of nation, hence, the nation itself."

There's no difference between the ideology of FDR and Mussolini. What separates the two is the war.

FDR tried really hard to get the U.S. into WWII years before Pearl Harbor. He made speeches to congress (THE QUARATINE SPEACH). He really really wanted to go into WWII. But, 70% of the U.S. was against it and Lindinberg(sp?) and co. in congress were very opposed to the war. Of course that all changed with Pearl Harbor. FDR actually did something about the Great Depression while Hoover and Coolidge(he knew the crash was coming) just kep to their "rugged individualism" and lazie-affaire economics. How can you critiize FDR when the nation in a SLAUGHTER elected Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1932 defeating Hoover. That was one of the BIGGEST landslides ever.

Firing MacCarthy was a must. MacCarthy lied and went behind Truman's back to cause trouble. He wanted to nuke China and was the one to screw things up over there. Even though Truman knew MacCarthy was starting to lie and all he just warned him and gave him another chance. But MacCarthy wouldn't stop and accused Truman of short supplying the troops in Korea..I'm sure there are wackos on this board that believe Joe McCarthy was right in his Communist witch hunts...funny thing is the people he accused in the St. Department were ridiculous. Half of the accused never even worked for the st. department. Another fifth didn't work for the department for a long time. Only a quarter were working for the St. Department at the time. All his accusations found to be false. He was voted out of office in his next election and died from alcohol related problems...

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.

You anti-semite your saying that the U.S. should stay out of the war and let the entire Jewish population die sure fine. Also Germany did declare war on us on December 9 (maybe 8 but not later than 9) 1941 so we were "forced" into war.

In the wise words of Ace Ventura...

Re-he-healllllly!

I feel that most people are trying to base their decisions on current events. 1930's and the 1940's were VASTLY different than now. Principles which work now probably wouldn't work then, and vice versa. Frankly, if action wouldn't have been taken, the Depression likely would have gotten worse. Remember: Hoover's "Let it fix itself" idea on the Great Depression only made things worse. If FDR had done nothing, frankly, the Depression would have likely continued. The time was so vastly different than now, that to even think that a principle which works today would work then would be asanine. Also, he was able to stabilize the economy. Although, this would not have gone on forever, it didn't need to. THANKFULLY, we were attacked by Japan, and Germany DECLARED WAR ON US. I know there are people going "WTF, Mate?", but let me explain. You see, without this, we would never have gotten out of the depression. This attack opened up industries, and mobilized people across the nation. Pretty much everybody pitched in for the effort, and pretty much everybody had a job(Most women did to). This gave the jumpstart to the economy that it needed.

Hitler believed war brought prosperity. Nice high school history, but I don't buy the "broken window theory". Consider the parable by Frederic Bastiat: "Have you ever witnessed the anger of the good shopkeeper, James B., when his careless son happened to break a square of glass? If you have been present at such a scene, you will most assuredly bear witness to the fact, that every one of the spectators, were there even thirty of them, by common consent apparently, offered the unfortunate owner this invariable consolation—"It is an ill wind that blows nobody good. Everybody must live, and what would become of the glaziers if panes of glass were never broken?"

Now, this form of condolence contains an entire theory, which it will be well to show up in this simple case, seeing that it is precisely the same as that which, unhappily, regulates the greater part of our economical institutions.

Suppose it cost six francs to repair the damage, and you say that the accident brings six francs to the glazier's trade—that it encourages that trade to the amount of six francs—I grant it; I have not a word to say against it; you reason justly. The glazier comes, performs his task, receives his six francs, rubs his hands, and, in his heart, blesses the careless child. All this is that which is seen.

But if, on the other hand, you come to the conclusion, as is too often the case, that it is a good thing to break windows, that it causes money to circulate, and that the encouragement of industry in general will be the result of it, you will oblige me to call out, "Stop there! your theory is confined to that which is seen; it takes no account of that which is not seen."

It is not seen that as our shopkeeper has spent six francs upon one thing, he cannot spend them upon another. It is not seen that if he had not had a window to replace, he would, perhaps, have replaced his old shoes, or added another book to his library. In short, he would have employed his six francs in some way, which this accident has prevented."

2) FDR was an idiot as far as WWII was concerned. We should have joined WWII when it started, not waited two years for the battle to come to us, which anyone intelligent knew it inevitably would. If he would have ignored the stupid isolationist morons that were the American majority at the time, grown some balls, and went into WWII early, it would have ended dramatically sooner and cost less lives on every side.

For someone who likes to talk it up, you have no clue how things really work, do you?

First off, Remember: The President does not declare war. Congress does. Congress would never have declared war because the VAST majority of people did not want to go to war. Our nation was way to screwed up internally for us to really give a damn what happened in Europe.

Second, if we went into WWII earlier, it would have likely lasted well into the 1950's. Why you ask? There is one resource which is difficult to tap, and frankly only has been to it's fullest once in the past two century: Morale. The reason WHY we were able to tip the balance of the war was Morale. We had been attacked by Japan. American Soil attacked by a foriegn enemy. The nation mobilized almost instantly, and American Pride has NEVER been at the levels reached here. EVERYBODY committed to the effort. From little timmy, collecting tin cans out of the garbage to recycle for weapons, or women giving up their nylons. Everybody wanted this war.

If we had declared war earlier, this would not have happened. People would not have generated this "pride" and morale. We would not have been able to push out full-sized battleships in a matter of two weeks. Simply put, we could not have done it. Without the support of the people, a war is destined to be lost. We would have sent more and more men to be SLAUGHTERED on the German fronts. Also, if this happened, we would not have developed the Atomic Bomb until much, much later. This weapon actually SAVED lives on the Japanese front.

Man. To quote you:

Moron.

Hitler believed war brought prosperity. Nice high school history, but I don't buy the "broken window theory". Consider the parable by Frederic Bastiat: "Have you ever witnessed the anger of the good shopkeeper, James B., when his careless son happened to break a square of glass? If you have been present at such a scene, you will most assuredly bear witness to the fact, that every one of the spectators, were there even thirty of them, by common consent apparently, offered the unfortunate owner this invariable consolation—"It is an ill wind that blows nobody good. Everybody must live, and what would become of the glaziers if panes of glass were never broken?"

Now, this form of condolence contains an entire theory, which it will be well to show up in this simple case, seeing that it is precisely the same as that which, unhappily, regulates the greater part of our economical institutions.

Suppose it cost six francs to repair the damage, and you say that the accident brings six francs to the glazier's trade—that it encourages that trade to the amount of six francs—I grant it; I have not a word to say against it; you reason justly. The glazier comes, performs his task, receives his six francs, rubs his hands, and, in his heart, blesses the careless child. All this is that which is seen.

But if, on the other hand, you come to the conclusion, as is too often the case, that it is a good thing to break windows, that it causes money to circulate, and that the encouragement of industry in general will be the result of it, you will oblige me to call out, "Stop there! your theory is confined to that which is seen; it takes no account of that which is not seen."

It is not seen that as our shopkeeper has spent six francs upon one thing, he cannot spend them upon another. It is not seen that if he had not had a window to replace, he would, perhaps, have replaced his old shoes, or added another book to his library. In short, he would have employed his six francs in some way, which this accident has prevented."

An interesting point. I can kinda see what you're getting at. However, now that I think about, what's the point in really debating on this particular issue? Really, if you think about there is no real way of knowing if a different approach would have worked any better. It was a very troubling, turbulent time, and any conjecture is simply that. For all we know, if FDR didn't impose the "New Deal", things may have gotten worse(which they were before him) for a period of time, but then slowly get better, possibly long before the end of of WWII. Or it could have gone the other way, and plummetted the Economy into a full collapse. Or, perhaps, if we never had gotten into WWII, our Economy would have collapsed(Which it likely would have-Most of the "New Deal" programs would not have worked well on a long-term basis, which they did not have to). Basically, we can conjecture all we want, but in the end we don't know for sure.

It is also a fallacies to believe Hoover was Laissez-faire. He was quite the economic interventionalist.

1. Hoover increased farm subsidies.
2. Passed the Smoot-Hawley tariff which pissed off the world. FDR supported this also.
3. Hoover embraced the "High Wage Doctrine".
4. Authorized the Emergency Relief Organization to help support local relief organizations.
5. Passed the Federal Home Loan Bank act.
6. Increased taxes through the passage of the Revenue Act of 1932.

He only lacked the great oration of FDR.

It is also a fallacies to believe Hoover was Laissez-faire. He was quite the economic interventionalist.

1. Hoover increased farm subsidies.
2. Passed the Smoot-Hawley tariff which pissed off the world. FDR supported this also.
3. Hoover embraced the "High Wage Doctrine".
4. Authorized the Emergency Relief Organization to help support local relief organizations.
5. Passed the Federal Home Loan Bank act.
6. Increased taxes through the passage of the Revenue Act of 1932.

He only lacked the great oration of FDR.

Hoover really does get a bad rap. He wasn't really a do-nothing, he felt that if left alone(for the most part) the economy would fix itself. Of course, we may never know if this is true or not.

Probably a larger part of the reason he lost the election wasn't because he was a bad orator(Less important than today), but because of the negative effect the Stock Market Crash(which wasn't the only reason for the Great Depression) had on his image. He had nothing to do with, but since it happened while he was in office, it did affect his image.

If he had accepted a candidacy bid in the early part of the 1920's(Which he refused, for some reason), he would likely have been considered one of the top Presidents. Unfortunately, he ran at a very unlucky time.

You all truly miss the worst Presidents, judging them by partisan views. The truly worst Presidents are a tie between Warren G. Harding and Ullyses S. Grant. This is so because both let huge scandals develop under their administration and really did nothing to stop them. Also, both were very weak and let their subordinates push them around. Both were very unsuited for the job, and anyone can agree they did not do it.

You all truly miss the worst Presidents, judging them by partisan views. The truly worst Presidents are a tie between Warren G. Harding and Ullyses S. Grant. This is so because both let huge scandals develop under their administration and really did nothing to stop them. Also, both were very weak and let their subordinates push them around. Both were very unsuited for the job, and anyone can agree they did not do it.

Actually, according to the residents of Harding's he was a very good president. Infact, none of them ever actually mention any of the bad things, only focusing on the good... they can't have much to talk about him then.

Unemployment rate 1929-1940: (% of civilian labor force)
1929: 3.2%
1930: 8.7
1931; 15.9
1932: 23.6
1933: 24.9
1934: 21.7
1935: 20.1
1936: 16.9
1937:14.3
1938: 19.0
1939: 17.2
1940: 14.6

Hoover really does get a bad rap. He wasn't really a do-nothing, he felt that if left alone(for the most part) the economy would fix itself. Of course, we may never know if this is true or not.

Probably a larger part of the reason he lost the election wasn't because he was a bad orator(Less important than today), but because of the negative effect the Stock Market Crash(which wasn't the only reason for the Great Depression) had on his image. He had nothing to do with, but since it happened while he was in office, it did affect his image.

If he had accepted a candidacy bid in the early part of the 1920's(Which he refused, for some reason), he would likely have been considered one of the top Presidents. Unfortunately, he ran at a very unlucky time.

Agreed.

I already said it but it looks like we've fallen off topic YET again. You're supposed to talk over the worst President ever. Not who you hate the most.

Once again, William Henry Harrison lasted for less than a month before he died of pneumonia; that alone makes him the worst U.S. President.

George Worst Bush

I already said it but it looks like we've fallen off topic YET again. You're supposed to talk over the worst President ever. Not who you hate the most.

Once again, William Henry Harrison lasted for less than a month before he died of pneumonia; that alone makes him the worst U.S. President.

I think this makes him one of the best!

I think this makes him one of the best!

Yes, as nothing he did had any bad effect on the country whatsoever.

For someone who likes to talk it up, you have no clue how things really work, do you?
For someone that can't survive a debate past an initial rebuttal, you sure are quick to assume you're correct.

First off, Remember: The President does not declare war. Congress does. Congress would never have declared war because the VAST majority of people did not want to go to war. Our nation was way to screwed up internally for us to really give a damn what happened in Europe.
First off, remember: the President can enter a war for up to six months without congressional approval. I believe that this is from a clause in the Constitution, but don't quote me on that, that was set up to allow more immediate response on the part of the President if a wartime situation called for taking action more quickly than congress could allow.

Second, if we went into WWII earlier, it would have likely lasted well into the 1950's. Why you ask? There is one resource which is difficult to tap, and frankly only has been to it's fullest once in the past two century: Morale. The reason WHY we were able to tip the balance of the war was Morale. We had been attacked by Japan. American Soil attacked by a foriegn enemy. The nation mobilized almost instantly, and American Pride has NEVER been at the levels reached here. EVERYBODY committed to the effort. From little timmy, collecting tin cans out of the garbage to recycle for weapons, or women giving up their nylons. Everybody wanted this war.

The reason morale would have had absolutely nothing to do with our success is because nuclear technology would have been developed more quickly than before, as Einstein would have come to us sooner had we been militarily involved, and we would have been even more adamant in developing nuclear weaponry than we already were. Two atom bombs would have worked just as well if we used them on both Japan and Germany - we would have simply acted as if we had many more, and threatened to keep dropping the bombs back and forth until they gave up. A hundred thousand people dead on each hit would have caused Germany and Japan both to give up quite efficiently, and would have worked even better if dropped directly on Hitler and Yamamoto or Tojo. Morale would have had little to do with it on our side. The technology would have still come about, only sooner, and it still would have ended the war. The only difference is that it would have been used to end the war on both fronts, instead of just in Japan.

If we had declared war earlier, this would not have happened. People would not have generated this "pride" and morale. We would not have been able to push out full-sized battleships in a matter of two weeks. Simply put, we could not have done it. Without the support of the people, a war is destined to be lost. We would have sent more and more men to be SLAUGHTERED on the German fronts. Also, if this happened, we would not have developed the Atomic Bomb until much, much later. This weapon actually SAVED lives on the Japanese front.

Wrong, Einstein skipped town as soon as possible, and warned us even quicker. The soldiers may have had lower morale and production output for weaponry may have been somewhat lower, but the atomic bomb would have been developed much more quickly. Also, we would not have lost as many men as you think on the German front, either, as we would have been fighting alongside the British and Russian troops who initially had higher morale than they did toward the end of the war, assuming FDR convinced Russia to join the instant they were mobilized, like we would have. The Russians would have gone along with it, too, so as not to look weak in the eyes of their people. Fighting three nations that early on would have lowered German morale much more than sending our troops in to support the fight in Europe would have lowered our morale.

Moron.

i agree...william henry harrison...gives the longest inagural speech ever...in the cold...catches pneumonia...dies a month later....IDIOT!...thats why all the speeches have gotten shorter since.

LOL!

They have all made mistakes (serious ones), and they have all made progress (however minor). I don't believe in partisanship or blind patriotism. Rather, I judge each person on their actions and ideas, and I question government every chance I get. That said, I think Clinton really rubbed the Republicans the wrong way... lol, they haven't gotten over him since. Just say his name and they erupt into tears of rage. And the "liberals" are no better... too weak and afraid to attack the easiest targets of all - Bush, and Bush II. What has happened to American politics? It used to be dirty. :mad:

Anyway... , nothing yet has convinced me that Jefferson was not the worst. Harrison is close second, for the Tecumseh matter.

Anyway, it's time for sleep, there have been numerous posts made on this topic if my reply was not sufficient, so I would refer you to those if you plan on responding. I'm sure the answer to anything you could construe is somewhere in the less recent posts of this thread, before you got in on it.

LOL!

They have all made mistakes (serious ones), and they have all made progress (however minor). I don't believe in partisanship or blind patriotism. Rather, I judge each person on their actions and ideas, and I question government every chance I get. That said, I think Clinton really rubbed the Republicans the wrong way... lol, they haven't gotten over him since. Just say his name and they erupt into tears of rage. And the "liberals" are no better... too weak and afraid to attack the easiest targets of all - Bush, and Bush II. What has happened to American politics? It used to be dirty. :mad:

Anyway... , nothing yet has convinced me that Jefferson was not the worst. Harrison is close second, for the Tecumseh matter.

If you look at the past posts of this thread, my friend, you'll find that much more has been dug up on what a douche Clinton was than how bad either Bush was, although I do think Bush Sr. was pretty bad. That said, none of the Bush's names should come up in a debate over the worst President of all time. Nor should Clinton, though he's probably within the worst ten.

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.

Or maybe listen to a song.

James K. Polk -- They Might Be Giants

in 1844, the democrats were split
The three nominees for the presidential candidate
Were martin van buren, a former president and an abolitionist
James buchanan, a moderate
Louis cass, a general and expansionist
From nashville came a dark horse riding up
He was james k. polk, napoleon of the stump

Austere, severe, he held few people dear
His oratory filled his foes with fear
The factions soon agreed
He's just the man we need
To bring about victory
Fulfill our manifest destiny
And annex the land the mexicans command
And when the vote was cast the winner was
Mister james k. polk, napoleon of the stump

In four short years he met his every goal
He seized the whole southwest from mexico
Made sure the tarriffs fell
And made the english sell the oregon territory
He built an independent treasury
Having done all this he sought no second term
But precious few have mourned the passing of
Mister james k. polk, our eleventh president
Young hickory, napoleon of the stump

Carter was indeed horrible (he should be tried for crimes against humanity), but he wasn't quite as bad as Lincoln or FDR.
Are you an idiot? Your american history teacher should be very depressed and drunk at the moment.

In order:

1) All the Gilded Age presidents (on the basis that they did nothing for the country, and let corruption run rampant.)
2) Jimmy Carter (Spineless and weak, cut the defense budget to nearly nothing - during the hostage crisis, America was the laughingstock after the helicopter collision.)
3) Lyndon B. Johnson (Liar, murderer. I am all about combat, but the massacres and the Pentagon Papers and the trail of misdirection showed that he had no moral backbone.)
4) Clinton (Lax, almost lazy, freeloader. He was in the right place to reap the rewards of the booming dotcom economy, but otherwise had a poor track record, notably in Somalia and the sprouting of various terrorist groups.
5) Dwight D. Eisenhower ("The Bland Leading the Bland". A good general, but a bad president. He was in a great place and had a booming economy, but failed to do anything with it.)

5) Dwight D. Eisenhower ("The Bland Leading the Bland". A good general, but a bad president. He was in a great place and had a booming economy, but failed to do anything with it.)

My God you've got to be kidding?!! Have you heard of interstate commerce. We would have shitty roads right now if it weren't for him. He really improved the infrastructure in transportation. This is one of the biggest things a President has done for infrastructure. And you say he didn't do anything with the booming economy..wow..

For someone that can't survive a debate past an initial rebuttal, you sure are quick to assume you're correct.

Care to point out?


First off, remember: the President can enter a war for up to six months without congressional approval. I believe that this is from a clause in the Constitution, but don't quote me on that, that was set up to allow more immediate response on the part of the President if a wartime situation called for taking action more quickly than congress could allow.


No shit Sherlock. However, America's army during this period was undertrained and underarmed. And the President cannot "Declare War" at all, for no period of time. That is solely Congress' right. The President can take immediate military action, but he/she can never, under any circumstances, declare war. Of course, if FDR would have enterred WWII earlier, without Congressional consent, Congress never would have declared war. We needed a reason, and just because FDR wanted to wasn't a good enough one. The President's use of military force would have been minimal, as he would not have been able to use it indefinately(And would have been removed from office if he refused a Congressional order to remove troops).


The reason morale would have had absolutely nothing to do with our success is because nuclear technology would have been developed more quickly than before, as Einstein would have come to us sooner had we been militarily involved, and we would have been even more adamant in developing nuclear weaponry than we already were. Two atom bombs would have worked just as well if we used them on both Japan and Germany - we would have simply acted as if we had many more, and threatened to keep dropping the bombs back and forth until they gave up. A hundred thousand people dead on each hit would have caused Germany and Japan both to give up quite efficiently, and would have worked even better if dropped directly on Hitler and Yamamoto or Tojo. Morale would have had little to do with it on our side. The technology would have still come about, only sooner, and it still would have ended the war. The only difference is that it would have been used to end the war on both fronts, instead of just in Japan.


Wow. Morale had everything to do with our success, and it would have had everything to do with our success if we went in earlier. You assume we would have developed the Atomic Bomb earlier had we started earlier. This, simply, is not so. First off, we would be funding a war in Europe for several more years, while trying to stave off depression at home. There would exist no funding for Atomic research. We simply would not have the funding to produce it faster. Even if we HAD developed it earlier, remember: We did not have the means to mass produce them. They were handmade by scientists. Not only that, but the Radioactive material used was extremely scarce. We would have dropped two or three, and then we're out. We now have even more pissed off Germans wanting vengence. Remember: German morale was EXTREMELY high. Dropping the bomb on them would have only bolstered it. Next, you assume that we COULD drop the bomb on Hitler. Which would be impossible, as we would never even get anywhere NEAR him, as the bomber would get shot down. We didn't have rockets then, either. We simply could not "bomb the hell" out of them. As for the Japanese, killing high-officials would actually have a negative effect for us. Japanese pride is far different than american pride. These men were willing to give up their lives for their country. A bombing on them would only further strengthen the idea that Americans were "Barbarians" coming to slaughter them and rape their women.



Wrong, Einstein skipped town as soon as possible, and warned us even quicker. The soldiers may have had lower morale and production output for weaponry may have been somewhat lower, but the atomic bomb would have been developed much more quickly. Also, we would not have lost as many men as you think on the German front, either, as we would have been fighting alongside the British and Russian troops who initially had higher morale than they did toward the end of the war, assuming FDR convinced Russia to join the instant they were mobilized, like we would have. The Russians would have gone along with it, too, so as not to look weak in the eyes of their people. Fighting three nations that early on would have lowered German morale much more than sending our troops in to support the fight in Europe would have lowered our morale.
Moron.

I must maintain that the A-Bomb would not have been developed more quickly, it owuld have been developed less quickly. Funding a war, which people were not willing to work hard to win, while trying to maintain a steady economy, all the while funding experimental research? No. It would not work. The Manhatten Project(or it's alternate reality counterpart) would have been underfunded, if even at all(Considering that the only reason we started it was because of rumors that Germany had started in 1939).

Also, you're model assumes that Russia would join. Which would not have happened. Stalin wanted NOTHING to do with World War 2. He would have rather kept an instable peace than go to war. The only reason he even went to war was because Germany attacked, and broke many, many ceasefires. If America had joined early, Hitler would have been forced to focus on the Western Front, and likely would not have attack Russia, thus bringing the USSR into the conflict. Remember: Back in this period of time Russia wasn't overly concerned with looking powerful. That came after the war. Thus, Stalin would not have gotten inolved, having Germany focus most of it's forces on teh Western front, thus slaughtering the forces.

When applying your "model" you do quite a few things wrong:

First, you use way to many assumptions. Don't assume. History will never play out how you assume it will.

Second, you underestimate. You underestimate Germany's morale. These people were brainwashed into thinking that they could take on the world. It's very hard to break a brainwashed person's morale. Also, these people had nothing else to fight for-they felt they were fighting for their country. There is no greater morale than this.

Third, you overestimate. You overrestimate Russia's willingness to join, you overestimate our ability to overcome massive morale, and you overestimate our ability to funding a failing economy, a war effort, and research funding(which may not have happened if things played out how you want them to).

And just for continuance reasons:

Moron.

Even if you arent a moral relativist, who's to say your belief is the true one? you? Thats a bit arrogant, isnt it?


Hardly. What is moral about kidnapping or splitting families? It was necessary to get the slaves from there to here, I understand. But wait... Aren't God-fearing, righteous Southern Americans suppose to be in favor of keeping the family together? What about forcing people to work for the benefit of a foreign land without the benefit of payment, or at least fair representation in that land? Face it, there was nothing at all right, just, or moral about slavery, or the ability of any person to own another person as if he himself is God. That people even attempted to justify it on any grounds - let alone economic grounds, is itself insane.


-These people got a job that they will quite likely keep for a long time, a job that feeds them, gives them a home, shelters them, etc. Its not as if they are kept in a dungeon and starved.

LOL! Who are you trying to kid? You act as if they were pets without feelings or without any sense of self worth. They were human beings with pride in themselves and where they came from (especially those straight from West Africa who were often soldiers or the sons of soldiers - those with military families, you should understand what that means.) These men had a desire to take care of themselves and their families as they had always done, and to earn their own living. They were entitled to do that - as ever other free man. They didn't appreciate, I am sure, being unable to defend themsleves or their wives or provide for their children, and being unable to look another grown man in the eyes just because he was white. And it wasn't "a job". You can quit "a job", but what happened when these grown men decided to seek a life elsewhere... in another state? Off the plantation? Without "massa" permission? These grown men found themselves hunted down like dogs. Some job. :rolleyes:

-Given time, the blacks would have risen up from their station, after the slave trade failed

Yea, the South had a great plan for that right? Wrong. Slaves were not even allowed to read or train in any skill massa didn't allow, so what jobs were they suppose to get once free? Moreover, the racial harassment they experienced certainly did not help the rising up of former slaves into society, even after slavery. The sad thing is that the entire process could have been rather painless and uneventful, if the culture had been more accommodating and less resentful and afraid. (Time and time again that same prejudice got in the way. It was the same prejudice that delayed the assimilation of Irish, Italian, and other immigrants to the US.)


-Forcing prohibition divided the nation, in places such as bleeding kansas, etc.


Let a man come to your house, take you from your wife and children, chain you, treat you like a dog, and then tell me whether the police should wait awhile until the cuprit decides he is done with you before setting you free. BTW, slave owners are not the only ones with whom I have a problem. The blacks should have stood up and fought for their own freedom. They were insane for staying slaves in the first place.

The reason morale would have had absolutely nothing to do with our success is because nuclear technology would have been developed more quickly than before, as Einstein would have come to us sooner had we been militarily involved, and we would have been even more adamant in developing nuclear weaponry than we already were.

I just reread your statement, and noticed another discrepency here. Einstein came to America in 1933. World War II started officially in 1939. The only reason we started Atomic Bomb research is because of rumors that Germany had started work as well.

First off, Einstein came before World War II started. Us going in sooner would not have had him come to us sooner, as he was already here.

Secondly, the only reason we cared about Atomic research was because we found out that Germany was working on it. Starting the war earlier wouldn't have changed anything here. We only first learned anything of Germany's Atomic research in 1939(Which was the beginning of the war). Atomic research began 1942 in the US. Changing around the timeline a bit wouldn't speed this up. Had we gone to war earlier, this research would have been lost in the need for more support and funding in teh war effort.

John Adams, during the time when his Federalist Party was in control, they made rules that completley threwout the rights of the Constitution, people coudnt speak bad about the Federalist, and they went as far to try and outlaw the election, as well as dozens of other things, cant remember them all, have to look them up, but yeah I would say him.

And peole think Bush and the Patriot Act was bad.

John Adams, during the time when his Federalist Party was in control, they made rules that completley threwout the rights of the Constitution, people coudnt speak bad about the Federalist, and they went as far to try and outlaw the election, as well as dozens of other things, cant remember them all, have to look them up, but yeah I would say him.

And peole think Bush and the Patriot Act was bad.

True, but Adams II was decent.

I'd have to say Herbert Hoover...worst economic disaster in American history.

I'd have to say Herbert Hoover...worst economic disaster in American history.

Hoover had the unfortunate problem of being elected just before the Stock Market crash, and teh great depression. He in no caused it, and actually tried to alleviate it through many means. He doesn't desever anywhere near "worst President", as he was just really unlucky.

I have a 3 way tie:

Lincoln: Caused an unnecessary war (if a government isn't satisfying a large group of people, they should be allowed to peacefully leave). He levied the first income tax, instituted a draft, etc etc. Furthermore he forever changed our federalist ways and made the federal government the supreme power.

Woodrow Wilson: Drug America into a war it didn't want or need to be involved in. Tried to get America involved in unnecessary international bodies, expanded the federal government, etc etc.

FDR: Helped the depression keep going through his New Deal. Instituted Social(ist) Security, pushed America into a bloody war (the Pacific fleet shouldve never been at Pearl Harbor, it shouldve stayed in San Diego and out of reach like his naval advisors told him). He took America off the gold standard, just a horrible president.

If it wasnt almost midnight and I wasnt full of cold medicine I could go on and on about these alleged "great' presidents. Hogwash I say.

As for my best (in case you care):

Washington: Set many positive standards, such as limiting himself to two terms and generally not abusing power.

Jefferson: Peacefully doubled the size of the nation. A great philosopher, etc.

Jefferson: Peacefully doubled the size of the nation.

:mad: Damnez les Américains!!! :mad:

I am not even going to justify why presidents like FDR and Lincoln are not terrible. It would take myself pages on why some of these people should not be on the list. The worst president of all time was Waren G. Harrding (Early 1920's). He was involved in at least seven scandles and past no significant legislation that could even put a positive dent in his record. Plus, he died two years into office.

Are you an idiot? Your american history teacher should be very depressed and drunk at the moment.

Thank you :)

I have a 3 way tie:

Lincoln: Caused an unnecessary war (if a government isn't satisfying a large group of people, they should be allowed to peacefully leave). He levied the first income tax, instituted a draft, etc etc. Furthermore he forever changed our federalist ways and made the federal government the supreme power.

Are you crazy? The southern states basically went to war with the north the moment news said that he was elected.

Woodrow Wilson: Drug America into a war it didn't want or need to be involved in. Tried to get America involved in unnecessary international bodies, expanded the federal government, etc etc.

Of course they didn not want to be involved, but they just recieved a secret message from the British that Germany had intentions to persuade Mexico to go to war against the Americans on the Centeral powers side(Zimmerman note). Plus, German U-boats had attacked many US ships in the region in their unresticted warfare.

FDR: Helped the depression keep going through his New Deal. Instituted Social(ist) Security, pushed America into a bloody war (the Pacific fleet shouldve never been at Pearl Harbor, it shouldve stayed in San Diego and out of reach like his naval advisors told him). He took America off the gold standard, just a horrible president.

The new deal did not drag the US further into depression, it just took a long time for visible results to show. Also, social security is there for people that have no hope of ever getting money.(Socialism is everywhere, take a look: Welfare, Worker's unions, labor laws, etc.). Another thing is that the gold standard would never last forever, it would just strech the dollar until it was worthless.

If it wasnt almost midnight and I wasnt full of cold medicine I could go on and on about these alleged "great' presidents. Hogwash I say.

As for my best (in case you care):

Washington: Set many positive standards, such as limiting himself to two terms and generally not abusing power.

Jefferson: Peacefully doubled the size of the nation. A great philosopher, etc.

I have never been so offended in my life.

reagan & bush sr. for sure, but dubya takes the cake in this contest.

Care to point out?
Yeah, post 350.

No shit Sherlock. However, America's army during this period was undertrained and underarmed. And the President cannot "Declare War" at all, for no period of time. That is solely Congress' right. The President can take immediate military action, but he/she can never, under any circumstances, declare war. Of course, if FDR would have enterred WWII earlier, without Congressional consent, Congress never would have declared war. We needed a reason, and just because FDR wanted to wasn't a good enough one. The President's use of military force would have been minimal, as he would not have been able to use it indefinately(And would have been removed from office if he refused a Congressional order to remove troops).
Okay, first of all, we had enough weaponry to start making some fairly hefty troop deposits, which would have been extremely helpful to the Europeans. America joining the war would have boosted overall European morale greatly, and effectually dropped German morale. Second of all, when one is on a battlefield as massive and active as those in WWII, I guarantee you, they aren't thinking about whether or not they agree with the current President. Ask ten veterans on the street, and I'd bet a hundred bucks that, if asked which was a greater determining factor in their survival in the war they were in, overall troop morale or the will to stay alive, nine would answer the latter. Also, I never said "declare war," you did. I said enter, and that's what the President can do. And one of the things FDR was known for was his good relationship with Congressman. If FDR would have put us six months into WWII and told Congress that it was necessary, using the fact that we were dragged into the first World War against our will as a referential precedent for the battle coming to us eventually, Congress would have given its support.



Wow. Morale had everything to do with our success, and it would have had everything to do with our success if we went in earlier. You assume we would have developed the Atomic Bomb earlier had we started earlier. This, simply, is not so. First off, we would be funding a war in Europe for several more years, while trying to stave off depression at home. There would exist no funding for Atomic research. We simply would not have the funding to produce it faster. Even if we HAD developed it earlier, remember: We did not have the means to mass produce them. They were handmade by scientists. Not only that, but the Radioactive material used was extremely scarce. We would have dropped two or three, and then we're out. We now have even more pissed off Germans wanting vengence. Remember: German morale was EXTREMELY high. Dropping the bomb on them would have only bolstered it. Next, you assume that we COULD drop the bomb on Hitler. Which would be impossible, as we would never even get anywhere NEAR him, as the bomber would get shot down. We didn't have rockets then, either. We simply could not "bomb the hell" out of them. As for the Japanese, killing high-officials would actually have a negative effect for us. Japanese pride is far different than american pride. These men were willing to give up their lives for their country. A bombing on them would only further strengthen the idea that Americans were "Barbarians" coming to slaughter them and rape their women.
First of all, you seem to think the Depression was nearly over when we entered WWII in '41. Wrong. World War II is 95% of the reason we came out at all under FDR. Secondly, the atomic bomb would have been developed sooner, as the original nuclear project would have been replaced with something grander in the name of urgency, on a scale similar the Manhattan Project replaced their initial efforts in 1942. That's right, FDR was not so quick to upgrade to the Manhattan project. The sense of imminence caused by FDR's hasty actions would have probably caused the research and construction to go faster, as well. As for Hitler - no, we would not have been able to get to him, but I guarantee you we could have found a way to get a bomber close enough to nuke his ass. An atom bomb has a pretty large area of effect, in case you didn't know. Besides, killing the Japanese and German commanders would only be used if it were possible to get massive non-officer casualties, too. Also, yes, the Japanese were prideful, but in demonstrating that we could kill one hundred-thousand people in a few seconds, and then that we could do it again (while implying that we could do it again and again), the Germans and Japanese both would have seen how pointless their efforts were. Even the Japanese gave up in light of two atomic bombs. Hitler probably would have killed himself, the crazy bastard.

I must maintain that the A-Bomb would not have been developed more quickly, it owuld have been developed less quickly. Funding a war, which people were not willing to work hard to win, while trying to maintain a steady economy, all the while funding experimental research? No. It would not work. The Manhatten Project(or it's alternate reality counterpart) would have been underfunded, if even at all(Considering that the only reason we started it was because of rumors that Germany had started in 1939).
Wrong, the reason we started it was because we got a letter directly from Einstein, quite possibly the most brilliant mind in the world at the time, pushing us to do it. And it would hardly have been underfunded just because it were developed sooner. The government has a history of being able to spend on deficit, and could have easily done that in this situation (and, in fact, was doing that at the start), resulting in the same financial support as the real Manhattan Project. Not to mention that the sense of, "Oh, shit, oh, shit, we better get this done before the Nazi's do," that would have been brought about by joining the war so quickly, would have resulted in more determined efforts on the part of the American scientists.

Also, you're model assumes that Russia would join. Which would not have happened. Stalin wanted NOTHING to do with World War 2. He would have rather kept an instable peace than go to war. The only reason he even went to war was because Germany attacked, and broke many, many ceasefires. If America had joined early, Hitler would have been forced to focus on the Western Front, and likely would not have attack Russia, thus bringing the USSR into the conflict. Remember: Back in this period of time Russia wasn't overly concerned with looking powerful. That came after the war. Thus, Stalin would not have gotten inolved, having Germany focus most of it's forces on teh Western front, thus slaughtering the forces.
Wrong. You're assuming that Stalin's only purpose for joining the war in this scenario would have been what he wanted to do. That would have had nothing to do with it. FDR and Churchill would have had Stalin in the war in no time, and either convinced him to attack via looking at historical precedent, or forced him to attack by either forging bullshit documents that said Hitler was going to move against him or forced him to move in by sending a German-looking cell in to fake an assassination attempt on his ass, or any number of things. There are tons of ways to get countries to do what you want them to do that have nothing to do with their desire.

First, you use way to many assumptions. Don't assume. History will never play out how you assume it will.
All that alternate historical models are, are assumptions. What matters isn't that you use too few, but that you can explain the ones you do.

Second, you underestimate. You underestimate Germany's morale. These people were brainwashed into thinking that they could take on the world. It's very hard to break a brainwashed person's morale. Also, these people had nothing else to fight for-they felt they were fighting for their country. There is no greater morale than this.
And you're forgetting that joining the war would have been largely beneficial to European morale. And you're forgetting that the will to survive is a feeling much more substantial than how much you like the President. And you're forgetting that the Japanese had a far greater will to fight than the Germans, and they had no qualms about surrendering after we dropped the bombs.

Third, you overestimate. You overrestimate Russia's willingness to join, you overestimate our ability to overcome massive morale, and you overestimate our ability to funding a failing economy, a war effort, and research funding(which may not have happened if things played out how you want them to).
Hardly; you overestimate how much it mattered whether or not Russia wanted to join, we would have convinced them one whay or another. You also overestimate the importance of our failing economy, as governments do not actually need large stacks of money to do anything. There is massive precedent for spending great amounts on nothing but deficit. You also don't understand what it is that caused us to start trying for a nuclear weapon. You also overestimate the importance of one group's morale over the combined military force of three nations, and you overestimate said morale when measured against the greatly improved morale of two-thirds of those nations.

Moron.

reagan & bush sr. for sure, but dubya takes the cake in this contest.

Whelp, at least your first post wasn't a partisan one.

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

If it didn't happen we'd be dealing with Islamic and Zionist terrorism. And if we hadn't won the American Revolution, the English Empire would be fighting off American terrorists. :mp5:

Worst goes to Hoover, who did absolutely nothing while the Great Depression kicked up. Honestly, any president who has towns of poor people named after him has to have been bad.

Honorable mention probably goes to most of the presidents between the end of the Civil War and the beginning of the 20th century. They did absolutely nothing and reeked of corruption.

I'd say the father of our social welfare program has to be up there on the list, FDR created the beginning of entitlement mentality in this country and it has been snowballing downhill ever since.

Clinton would have been right on his heals had he been able to socialize medicine the way he and Hillary tried at the beginning of his Presidency. He basically got to look good as the result of previous fiscal policy while actually doing relatively little...

"I am not a crook" :mp5:

The best and worst president ever was William H. Harrison. Best because he hardly fucked anything up. Worst because he accomplished absolutely nothing during his reign as president.

Okay, I really hate to do this, as I loathe the guy, but I have to defend Clinton on this one. He was doing his best to save Social Security, and he is one of the few Democratic politicians that would admit Social Security was on the outs early-on.

By the way, for those Democrats that are following their politician buddies in trying to shoot-down the Republican social security legislation, know this. What you don't realize when watching CNN and NBC is that the numbers showing social security's massive decrease in return are extremely skewed. One, they are normally the numbers used to describe a preliminary draft of another social security bill put out before the most recent one. Two, which is better: losing 10-50% of your social security benefits, depending on what bracket you're in, or losing all of your social security benefits? Something needs to be done, and until the Democrats in congress come up with a better idea, this is our best bet at saving social security at all.


I leave my party lines for s second, and say thankyou. I admire that you realize the Social Security problem. I'm saying the republicans may not have the best idea, but the democrats don't have any idea and aren't open to conversing about the matter. This is plain stupidity in a way. A democracy is for both sides to debate an issue an be open to dicussion an for both to try and create a fair plan. BUT when democrats refuse to have open talks, the republicans are left to try and figure out a solution on their own. And to qoute a famous democrat president, who some folks are saying is the worst (not me though), FDR

"It is common sense to take a method and try it. If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something."
Franklin D. Roosevelt

Sorry if this off topic, but just had to address it.

I leave my party lines for s second, and say thankyou. I admire that you realize the Social Security problem. I'm saying the republicans may not have the best idea, but the democrats don't have any idea and aren't open to conversing about the matter. This is plain stupidity in a way. A democracy is for both sides to debate an issue an be open to dicussion an for both to try and create a fair plan. BUT when democrats refuse to have open talks, the republicans are left to try and figure out a solution on their own. And to qoute a famous democrat president, who some folks are saying is the worst (not me though), FDR

"It is common sense to take a method and try it. If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something."
Franklin D. Roosevelt

Sorry if this off topic, but just had to address it.

Oh, you're a neo-con?

The best solution is to give the money taxed by social security back to the people. Abolish socialist insecurity now.

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.

Dude, who are you kidding? President Clinton expanded the role of government into areas that the Feds had no busyness in, he wimped out when it came to foreign relations, and he allowed terrorism to build up unchecked by cutting intelligence and millitary funding. He was involved in a scandle, which he would have been empeached for if the democrates didn't have Congress/Senate majority, and then sent United States Rangers, good men with wives and children, into a hopless situation (Black Hawk Down) to have them slautered as a ploy to divert attention from his ridiculous affair. He was the worst President in America's history, remotely challenged only by Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincon.

Oh, you're a neo-con?

The best solution is to give the money taxed by social security back to the people. Abolish socialist insecurity now.

Your absolutly correct. Social Security must be abolished at all cost

Your absolutly correct. Social Security must be abolished at all cost
Roflmao. Bad pun there comrade.

Ya Social Security should be abolished and replaced by a Share the Wealth Program

Ya Social Security should be abolished and replaced by a Share the Wealth Program

You mean one that taxed the wealthy at a percentage five or six times that of the poor? Oh, wait - nevermind.

Bullshit. Lincoln wasn't a federalist. He wanted a unitary system where states had virtually no power at all.
And he got it. Well, he didn't really get it. We got it.

Isn't it widely accepted in some places that Harding would rank to be America's worst?

Dude, who are you kidding? President Clinton expanded the role of government into areas that the Feds had no busyness in, he wimped out when it came to foreign relations, and he allowed terrorism to build up unchecked by cutting intelligence and millitary funding.


Ok reasonable argument. He was a poll driven President.


He was involved in a scandle, which he would have been empeached for if the democrates didn't have Congress/Senate majority,

Read the History of the Presidents. Clinton didn't do anything new.


and then sent United States Rangers, good men with wives and children, into a hopless situation (Black Hawk Down) to have them slautered as a ploy to divert attention from his ridiculous affair. He was the worst President in America's history, remotely challenged only by Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincon.

Woaahhhhhh Tin Hat time. That will keep out the govermental mind rays.
----
So unless you have some decent evidence. I have to give you the :rolleyes:

I think one should ideally judge a president by the policies he instsitutes, but throughout American history, especially in the past 30 years, there have been some presidents that may not have technically qualified as leaders of a democratic state at all. Consider Bush jr. for example. He has undermined decades of progressive regulations concerning all aspects of social welfare, especially the environment. He has done all of this with less than 50% of popularity ratings amoung the public, without consent or consultation from the Democrats, and was "elected" with significant technical "errors", TWICE. The worst part of his rule over the American People has been his elaborate and extremely effective propaganda campaigns. And by propanganda I don't mean advertisement to promote popularity for him or for his policies, I mean that he has intentionally misled the public on a number of occasions, and has started a war and brainwashed millions of Americans. This is the kind of propaganda typical of authoritarian regimes. If you don't believe me, take a look at one thread in the General forum titled something like, "Shouldn't the presidential term be extended for Bush, the greatest president who ever lived?". Now, I believe Clinton was one of America's greatest presidents ever, but I would never promote ammmending the constitution for him, most probably temporarily, and definately not in the sole interests of my own party (reference to the fillibuster debate, anyone?). I've said enough.

this thread grow to fast for me to debate everything! and with all the thoughts going through my head at genius rates I grow tired... :D

Has anyone mentioned Washington?

Isn't it widely accepted in some places that Harding would rank to be America's worst?

Ya many believe he was the worst. Many also believe he was the reason why the crash happened, because how he se the course for his two succesors Collidge and Hoover.

Andrew Jackson order the Trail of Tears, causing the death and displacement of hundreds of thousands of Native Americans from the SE US. On top of that, he was defying a supreme court ruling that said he had no right to impinge on to sovereign rights of those Indian Nations without declaring war too.

Has anyone mentioned Washington?

Really? Well with what he turned down, he rates ok in my book. How many of todays leaders would turn down such an offer?

Lincoln was the worst president.

Lincoln was the worst president.
Clinton and Nixon and Kennedy were the worst in recent memory.
There were probably bad ones earlier, if any Americans can fill me in.

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.


I agree with you. If the U.S. ever wanted anyone "really" dead.. it would be as easy as pie.

It's all political and money.

Warren G. Harding

I feel the same way about Cocaine.. if the US govn't wasn't getting money from it.. that shit wouldn't get in here.

Marajuana on the other hand is something that can be grown by the average joe, and smoked, eaten or sold freely unless they tax it like they did back in the day. If they didn't they'd(govn't) get no profit from it. It's too easy to grow.. too easy to sell.

More so it's become a political handle.

Yeah, post 350.


Well, I'm sorry for having a life and not checking every single page of a thread. I'll try to be a secluded little geekboy and check every page of every thread which I have posted in in every message board in the future.


Okay, first of all, we had enough weaponry to start making some fairly hefty troop deposits, which would have been extremely helpful to the Europeans. America joining the war would have boosted overall European morale greatly, and effectually dropped German morale. Second of all, when one is on a battlefield as massive and active as those in WWII, I guarantee you, they aren't thinking about whether or not they agree with the current President. Ask ten veterans on the street, and I'd bet a hundred bucks that, if asked which was a greater determining factor in their survival in the war they were in, overall troop morale or the will to stay alive, nine would answer the latter. Also, I never said "declare war," you did. I said enter, and that's what the President can do. And one of the things FDR was known for was his good relationship with Congressman. If FDR would have put us six months into WWII and told Congress that it was necessary, using the fact that we were dragged into the first World War against our will as a referential precedent for the battle coming to us eventually, Congress would have given its support.

Alright, round two. Did we have the capability to make a large troop output? Yes. However, I think you truly underestimate the importance of morale in this war. Do you know how we were able to push a full Battleship in two weeks? Or how we produced 30,000 tanks were able to be produced in 1943? One quick hint-it had everything to do with morale . People were willing to work at 100% because they were fighting for their freedom. People were willing to fight harder on the battlefield, because our soil had been attacked, and we were fighting for freedom. This is great fuel. If it weren't for morale , dissention in the ranks would have been largescale. Instead of standing and fighting, I would have no doubt many would flee. If we did a preemptive strike, the people would be cynical and quite unwilling to work efficiently. We would never reach the levels of productivity reached during WW2. Had FDR had brought us into WW2 for six months, he would have one hell of a time convincing Congress to declare war. Remember: The VAST majority of the populace did not want to go to war. Congressmen aren't so stupid as to declare war when almost everyone doesn't want to.

Hmm... let's do a timeline check, while we're at it.

1939-WW2 starts with Hitler's threat to invade Poland. 1940 was an election year. Had FDR brought the military into this War in 1939, he would have no chance of regaining popularity with the people. Thus, he would be replaced by someone who would bring our troops home. So, anytime before November 1940 would not help with the war effort, as FDR would have been replaced. So that means, late 1940 at the earliest. Say he went to war in early 1941(He wouldn't have wanted to plan it to early-might get out to the people who would be pissed off and not vote for him). Pearl harbor happened in December 1941. So basically, we have only a few month gap between when a feasable entrance into the war without Pearl Harbor, and when Pearl Harbor actually happened. Unfortunately, by doing this, we lose all of the morale , and for what? 8 months? WOW. Basically, we'd be working far less efficiently, for an eight month gain. THe effect would be minimal, at best.



First of all, you seem to think the Depression was nearly over when we entered WWII in '41. Wrong. World War II is 95% of the reason we came out at all under FDR. Secondly, the atomic bomb would have been developed sooner, as the original nuclear project would have been replaced with something grander in the name of urgency, on a scale similar the Manhattan Project replaced their initial efforts in 1942. That's right, FDR was not so quick to upgrade to the Manhattan project. The sense of imminence caused by FDR's hasty actions would have probably caused the research and construction to go faster, as well. As for Hitler - no, we would not have been able to get to him, but I guarantee you we could have found a way to get a bomber close enough to nuke his ass. An atom bomb has a pretty large area of effect, in case you didn't know. Besides, killing the Japanese and German commanders would only be used if it were possible to get massive non-officer casualties, too. Also, yes, the Japanese were prideful, but in demonstrating that we could kill one hundred-thousand people in a few seconds, and then that we could do it again (while implying that we could do it again and again), the Germans and Japanese both would have seen how pointless their efforts were. Even the Japanese gave up in light of two atomic bombs. Hitler probably would have killed himself, the crazy bastard.


How did you come to the conclusion that I thought the Depression was almost over? WW2 was the ONLY reason we got out of it. I find it kind of hard to take in that the Atom Bomb would have been discovered to quickly, being as how Plutonium was discovered in late 1940. We wouldn't have been able to develop this quicker by funding because it was accidental, and it's discovery was kept secret. Whoops. We couldn't make the Atom Bomb earlier becasue, you know what, we didn't have the primary materials(Which were, incidently, made known in the next few years after we joined-something our government couldn't control). The Atom Bomb simply could not have been created earlier.

Okay, and you seem to think that Einstein had the largest role in the Atom Bomb Production? Wrong. Bohr played a good role. He came to America in 1939, and discussed with Einstein about the German scientist's discoveries. Einstein couldn't have sent his letter earlier than this, because frankly he didn't know about what was going on until this time. Oh, this is also the year Einstein sent the letter. Had the War started earlier, there is no telling what may have happened; Bohr may have never talked to Eintein, thus Einstein would not have sent the letter. Next, there is Enrico Fermi, who split the first atom in 1934 in Rome, although the actual splitting of the Atom wasn't conceived until a bit later. He came to America in the late 1930's, and took a position at the University of Columbia. He then went to the University of Chicago, where he ran the first step in the process of the Atom Bomb. Here, in 1942, the first self sustained chain reaction(What makes A-bombs go boom), and thus put the A-bomb project into full swing. Well, being as the processes for which the A-bomb works weren't discovered until 1942, there is no way the A-bomb could even exist before this point.

However, to indulge you, let's assume it was created. I'm curious-do you know how powerful the first A-Bomb's were? Little hint-several thousand times less powerful than todays. They were actually fairly weak. The blast radius was about 4 miles. Which is not much. In order for us to drop one on Hitler, we would have had to be right smack on top of him, basically. Do you know how hard it would have been to get a bomber larger enough to carry the first A-bombs deep into Germany? Next to impossible. If we carted one in on the ground, the blast radius would have been extremely suppressed, and not to mention it would almost be impossible to "sneak" a 5 ton bomb deep into the heart of Germany.

Now let's assume that we bombed Germany. What would Hitler do? He would push his scientists harder to produce something of the same effect. He wouldn't commit suicide over something like this. It would have pushed Germany even harder to produce it themselves.

Also, Truman used the tactic of deceiving the Japanese. He devised this after figuring out that the Japanese would fight to the death. There is NO way of telling if we would have thought of giving Japan this idea to deceive them if we produced it before FDR died and Truman gained office. Now, had we dropped one or even two on Germany for that matter, Hitler would not just give up. And then, in teh coming months, Japan and Hitler would realize we don't have any left. Well... now we're screwed. Sure, we did some momentary damage, but the overall effect would have been nill. Not only that, but we couldn't produce more. The materials needed simply did not exist in large quantities yet.

And do you know why the Japanese gave up after two drops? Because first, Nagasaki was a major shipbuilding and repair city(Secondary target, the first target had to much cloud cover), and Hiroshima was a major supply and logistics base. The reason why this is important is that after the bombing, we pretty much destroyed their offensive capability. Now, if Japan HADN'T taken the bait, and given up, it still had a massive military left, one capable of pushing back anything short of a Normandyx10 invasion. But, it's offensive capabilities were crippled beyond repair, and under fear of more coming, they gave up. However, had we decided to "split" the use of the bombs, neither side would have given up. They would NOT have given up, and would have seen the US was full of BS(Note, this is if we infact developed the A-bomb earlier than this point).


Wrong, the reason we started it was because we got a letter directly from Einstein, quite possibly the most brilliant mind in the world at the time, pushing us to do it. And it would hardly have been underfunded just because it were developed sooner. The government has a history of being able to spend on deficit, and could have easily done that in this situation (and, in fact, was doing that at the start), resulting in the same financial support as the real Manhattan Project. Not to mention that the sense of, "Oh, shit, oh, shit, we better get this done before the Nazi's do," that would have been brought about by joining the war so quickly, would have resulted in more determined efforts on the part of the American scientists.

Now, the Manhatten Project started in 1942. We couldn't start the Manhattan Project earlier, because the underlying principles of the A-bomb did not exist . These principles were developed almost completely independantly from the Government. Man, the Manhattan Project only created the Bomb, it didn't create the principles. Oh, and the Scientists working on the principles were working about as fast as they possibly could, because the major players were from Europe, and knew they had to make it before Germany. They were working on it before America even enterred WW2. Huh. Whoops on your part.


Wrong. You're assuming that Stalin's only purpose for joining the war in this scenario would have been what he wanted to do. That would have had nothing to do with it. FDR and Churchill would have had Stalin in the war in no time, and either convinced him to attack via looking at historical precedent, or forced him to attack by either forging bullshit documents that said Hitler was going to move against him or forced him to move in by sending a German-looking cell in to fake an assassination attempt on his ass, or any number of things. There are tons of ways to get countries to do what you want them to do that have nothing to do with their desire.

Stalin trusted the Allies just about as much as he trusted hitler, possibly even less. He would have smelled BS from a mile away. A fake assassination attempt? Do you really think that Stalin would fall for this? He wasn't an idiot, you know. Had the "cell" looked obviously German, the entire facade would have been clearly a fake, thus angerring Stalin, and perhaps bringing him against us. There is no way we could have gone against a Russia-Germany-Japan-Italy Axis. No way. In hell. Now, had the "cell" been not obvious, you'd have to convince him otherwise... how would one go about doing this? Speak German? In a German dialect? There weren't many who could do this well, and not any body who would lie through their teeth through the torture they would be put through. Stalin would either A) have gotten the truth from torturing the cell. or B)Seen right through the facade, and for the BS that it is. He was far to smart for this. And either way, it'd be disasterous for us.
Oh, and any treaty even proposed to Stalin would have been shot down. Why you ask? A non-aggression pact with Germany which would give Norway, Sweden, and Finland to Russia, asking only one thing of Russia: a non-aggression pact. Now, which would you choose if you were Stalin: Enterring a war you DID NOT want to get into with allies you did not trust, or a guarenteed largescale expansion of your territory for doing nothing? Let me tell you what he DID choose: The Non-aggression pact.
Now, had we enterred before we did, Hitler would have been forced to focus on the Western Front, thus he likely would not have broken this pact in 1941(the same year we enterred, by the way), thus Russia would not have gotten involved(Because Stalin didn't give a rat's ass about what happened elsewhere), and thus we would have had the entirety of the German army upon, more than enough to quell anything we threw at them.


All that alternate historical models are, are assumptions. What matters isn't that you use too few, but that you can explain the ones you do.


Most alternate history models at least use possible assumption, and ones that are reasonable. The assumptions you make are extremely unlikely to ever happen, and require all of them to happen.


And you're forgetting that joining the war would have been largely beneficial to European morale. And you're forgetting that the will to survive is a feeling much more substantial than how much you like the President. And you're forgetting that the Japanese had a far greater will to fight than the Germans, and they had no qualms about surrendering after we dropped the bombs.


Ah, but when we joined must be scrutinized. Join to early, we don't have the support from the people, join to late, the effect will be lessened. We may have effected European morale temporarily, but with American morale dropping, I doubt we would have been able to keep it going at any decent speed for a long time. Also, the will to fight for your family in most is stronger than your will to survive. Pride is a greater fuel than fear in war. Pride allows you to stand your ground and fight, fear makes you turn and run. The reason the Japanese gave up was because we destroyed two of their largest military bases, and threatened to send more. There is no telling what their reaction may have been earlier, had we not dropped on those two cities, and had we not told them we had more(Which we may not have-remember it was Truman who devised it when he was the President after FDR died; who knows if FDR OR Truman would have thought of using this tactic if the A-bomb were developed earlier).


Hardly; you overestimate how much it mattered whether or not Russia wanted to join, we would have convinced them one whay or another. You also overestimate the importance of our failing economy, as governments do not actually need large stacks of money to do anything. There is massive precedent for spending great amounts on nothing but deficit. You also don't understand what it is that caused us to start trying for a nuclear weapon. You also overestimate the importance of one group's morale over the combined military force of three nations, and you overestimate said morale when measured against the greatly improved morale of two-thirds of those nations.

Stalin didn't trust us. What makes you think he would join our cause, when he had ample reason not to(Sweden, Finland, and Norway are pretty nice reasons for not doing anything). The economy may or may not have played a role-often the economy gets a superficial boost in times of war. You also don't understand that the principles for the bomb did not exist until after we enterred the war-and the government had no control over this. You assume that Russia would have joined, when it most assuredly would not have. Thus, Britain and USA. Against the entirety of the German army. Considering that the Germans were able to split their forces and still put up one hell of a fight, I doubt we could have been able to take on Germany in it's entirety.


Moron.

Yeah. Right.

I agree with you. If the U.S. ever wanted anyone "really" dead.. it would be as easy as pie.

It's all political and money.

Exactly. Our special ops would have had very little problem taking care of Saddam without us openly engaging in war. Hell, we could easily have captured him(With decent intel, that is), while avoiding any major conflict. Oh well. If's, and's, and but's.

How were Lincoln or FDRLincoln - http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/lincoln-arch.html

FDR - http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=258&sortorder=authorlast

....were candy and nuts, what a happy world this would be.

You forget how many conservatives are on this board. The starter of the thread stated outright that to think that Bush might be the worst president ever and that Carter probably is. That's perfectly in line with thinking that it was a bad thing to defeat Nazi's and end slavery.In recent decades conservatives have generally been fans of FDR the warrior, but not big on his socialism. More and more though, conservatives, especially the neo-cons, have become more and more fans of him overall. Lincoln has always been the darling of the Republican party. The Republican party likes to call itself the party of Lincoln. Both men are held in high regard by most Americans, especially among the political elite and public school teachers. There are few of us who think Lincoln was the worst President and even fewer who think the US should not have gotten involved in WWII. And I think it's a pretty safe bet that everyone who feels that way also thinks Bush Jr. belongs near the top of the list.

Alright let's take an easy here. The question was who was the worst president. Not who you hated the most.

This is an easy one; William Henry Harrison.

Why?
I think getting into office and dying not even a month later because you can't take care of your own health is a plenty good reason. He wasn't assassinated or anything. He just died of pneumonia.

Keep it simple guys.Are you kidding me? If only all the presidents would promptly die shortly after swearing in, we'd be much better off. WHH is the best president the United States ever had. He wasn't around long enough to do much damage.

All you are doing is agreeing with me. Did you not catch the part where I said slavery would collapse when it became unprofitable?

In part, yes. The bitch of it is, Slavery was already unprofitable before the War broke out. Most of the actual reasons behind the war had to do with internal-to-the-U.S. economic interactions. many of which could have (maybe would have) been eliminated a decade earlier with the Abolition of slavery. The South put itself into a position by defending the practice of human chattel-slavery, where it had no chance of winning, and little chance of improving its bottom-line...even if the North say 'bye-bye.
Slavery the Institution was unweildy and impractical, but it was also desperately clung to by the slaveholding classes in the Cotton and Tobacco states. It was effectively the millstone that killed the Confederacy before it was even born.

Not that the death was all that easy, mind, the war was started by the Confederacy with the attempt to conquer-through-siege a Federal installation (*on Federal Land) named Ft. Sumter.

Ive said it before, and I'll say it again..screw anyone who lames on Carter.

FDR - http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=258&sortorder=authorlast

Oh please, maybe he made it worse for the rich bastards but he kept millions of people on their feet and got us through it in one piece.

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?

Because if you don't have as many wepans as your enemie he's stronger than you, If I have one nuke you build two, then I build ten, you build 50, so I build 100. The USSR would not take the hit that the US was wipping there ass in arms production, becuase it would make them seem weaker in the worlds eyes. It dosen't matter that you have the ability to wipe the world out 100 times over what matters is that you can wipe out the world more times over than the other guy so he thinks twice about fucking with you.

I'd say the father of our social welfare program has to be up there on the list, FDR created the beginning of entitlement mentality in this country and it has been snowballing downhill ever since.

Clinton would have been right on his heals had he been able to socialize medicine the way he and Hillary tried at the beginning of his Presidency. He basically got to look good as the result of previous fiscal policy while actually doing relatively little...

I'm not going to argue over social welfare, but I don't see what is wrong with socialised medicine?

Personally - I see no problems with providing medical help to those least able to afford it... and see no reason why there shouldn't ALSO be private healthcare for those who want attention NOW and are willing to pay for that privilege.

Socialised medicine is consistently rejected by American government for financial reasons... yes - but not what you seem to think. They are not worried that social healthcare will bankrupt society - they are worried that social healthcare would cut the illegal monopoly on drugs that the current regime allows.

I'm not going to argue over social welfare, but I don't see what is wrong with socialised medicine?

Personally - I see no problems with providing medical help to those least able to afford it... and see no reason why there shouldn't ALSO be private healthcare for those who want attention NOW and are willing to pay for that privilege.

Socialised medicine is consistently rejected by American government for financial reasons... yes - but not what you seem to think. They are not worried that social healthcare will bankrupt society - they are worried that social healthcare would cut the illegal monopoly on drugs that the current regime allows.

There's no monopoly on drugs. The U.S. produces most of the words drugs, and whomever wishes to make them can. Are you suggesting we should steal the innovation from the pharmaceutical companies?

Drugs are not the major cost of healthcare. The bulk of the costs come from healthcare workers. I think you like to blame drug companies because they are productive and reap the benefits of that productivity.

There's no monopoly on drugs. The U.S. produces most of the words drugs, and whomever wishes to make them can. Are you suggesting we should steal the innovation from the pharmaceutical companies?

I'd like to see figures cited to support your assertion that the US "produces most of the world's drugs". (Spelling and punctuation corrected by me, but otherwise a direct quote).

The monopoly of which I spoke, is the internal monopoly - the fact that very tight controls are kept to prevent other medicines from ENTERING the US. In fact, even drugs made IN the US are prevented from being re-introduced.

Why?

Because the government allows the Pharmaceutical companies a special exception. They are FREE of market forces, unlike food producers, for example. To allow free trade of drugs over the border, or even re-introduction of native-made drugs, would be competition - since the US prices are MUCH higher than those for the same products elsewhere.

And, I don't mean similar products. I mean the exact same pill, made on the same conveyor, in the same factory, by the same company, even shipped in the same packaging.

The ONLY difference is, the drug sent to Canada (for example) is sold on an open market - and thus, sells for a far lower price. Which is why it is CHEAPER to buy back those SAME drugs that have already been exported (incurring export charges) and then re-imported (incurring import charges)... and you can still buy the exact same drug for (maybe) half the price.

If you want to talk about innovations in medicine, perhaps you are looking in the wrong place. For em, innovation is in places like Thailand.

American Pharmaceuticals companies make an AIDS treatment package that costs thousands of dollars per month, that means taking about 14 pills a day.

In Thailand, the same basic effect (even a similar formulation) costs about a dollar a day, is in the form of one or two pills... and has a pleasant orange-y taste.

The US market drug favours profit, not innovation.

Exactly. Our special ops would have had very little problem taking care of Saddam without us openly engaging in war. Hell, we could easily have captured him(With decent intel, that is), while avoiding any major conflict. Oh well. If's, and's, and but's.

People greatly overestimate what can be done by unsupported spec-ops troops deep inside an adversary state. It annoys the hell out of the few SEALS I know. They're good, but they aren't magic.

Not to mention it would take an act of Congress for spec forces to be able to take out a foriegn leader, since Congress explicitly outlawed that a few decades back.

And then there's the problem of, ok, we've killed Saddam but left his regime in-place, armed, and angry. Gee, that doesn't sound like an idiotic move at all, does it?

Drugs are not the major cost of healthcare. The bulk of the costs come from healthcare workers. I think you like to blame drug companies because they are productive and reap the benefits of that productivity.

On the contrary. I am a Chemist, and have made pharmaceutical grade drugs.

Machinery is expensive, in unit costs... but, for the most part, medical grade drugs are incredibly INEXPENSIVE to make... mere pennies for thousands of unit batches.

But, those unit prices are not passed on to the customer... thus, Pharmaceutical companies reap enormous profits, because the FDA and the government refuse to allow competition. They have, effectively, created a monopoly for the drug industry.

the absolute worst was Jimmy Carter. Completely inept at foreign policy ...


Carter brought for the first time Israel and an Arab country (EGYPT) to peace, and was able to turn Egypt from the Soviet side to the Western side.

Is THIS "Completely inept at foreign policy"?