NationStates Jolt Archive

I recently purchased a book that had the presidents ranked in order of "greatness". it has all 42, but i wanted to see if anybody can get the top ten. Id really be surprised if anyone could get them in order.

Isn't that subjective?

Data was drawn out of a recent survey, so it's not just some idiot babbling

Can you name the top ten Swedish kings/queens? Because that would be as pointless as this.

Can you name the top ten Swedish kings? Because that would be as pointless as this.
can you name my 10 longest ass hairs?

can you name my 10 longest ass hairs?

Of course I can. They're the ones so prominently placed on your face.

Of course I can. They're the ones so prominently placed on your face.

Back where I come from, that is known as a 'ziiiiing!'.

:upyours:

Teddy Roosevelt
FDR
Jefferson
Madison
Washington
JFK
Clinton
Wilson

not necessarily in that order, except Teddy and FDR are on top.

Back where I come from, that is known as a 'ziiiiing!'.
They have ass hairs on your face where you come from? :confused:

:upyours:

Oh, honey, you're just not man enough to fuck me, wish as you might.

Batman's definitely in the top 5.

Teddy Roosevelt
FDR
Jefferson
Madison
Washington
JFK
Clinton
Wilson

not necessarily in that order, except Teddy and FDR are on top.

What no Lincoln?

Teddy Roosevelt
FDR
Jefferson
Madison
Washington
JFK
Clinton
Wilson

not necessarily in that order, except Teddy and FDR are on top.
Madison, JFK, Clinton and Wilson aren't on the top 10

Any one else care to try? or try again?

FDR should not be on the list
1. washington
2. lincon
3?
4.?
5?
6?
7?
8?
9?
10?

want me to just give the answers?

1. Washington
2. Jefferson
3. Lincoln (Not my opinion since I support the Confederacy, but whatever. ;|)
4. Teddy Roosevelt
5. FDR
...

sure why not, iam to tired to think about it

Jefferson
Captain America
T. Roosevelt
Lincoln
FDR
Dr. Zhivago
Johnson
Batman
Washington
King Olof Skötkonung

1. Washington
2. Jefferson
3. Lincoln (Not my opinion since I support the Confederacy, but whatever. ;|)
4. Teddy Roosevelt
5. FDR
...

You support the Confederacy? You are a fan of slavery then?

In this order:
Washington
Lincoln
FDR
Jefferson
Teddy Roosevelt
Ronald Raegan
Harry Truman
Eisenhower
Polk
Andrew Jackson

In this order:
Washington
Lincoln
FDR
Jefferson
Teddy Roosevelt
Ronald Raegan
Harry Truman
Eisenhower
Polk
Andrew Jackson

Reagan? Truman? Eisenhower? POLK? POLK?

What no Lincoln?
Lincoln was a tyrant.
James K Polk might be up there; he's like the only prez to have accomplished all of his presidential goals.

sweet i got the first 2 right...FDR should not even be on the list

Why is Andy in the top ten?

Reagan? Truman? Eisenhower? POLK? POLK?
Raegab ended the cold war,
Truman dropped a nuke, very influential,
Eisenhower- i agree he should be replaced with Wilson,
and Polk got a buttload of terrotory for the united states, including texas, New mexico, and California

Why is Jackson on that list? How does killing hordes of Native Americans make you a top president?

Lincoln was a tyrant.
James K Polk might be up there; he's like the only prez to have accomplished all of his presidential goals.

Lincoln had to act that way to keep the union unified. "Tyrant"? I think other presidents have given themselves similar powers in wartime.

Jackson made the Republic of the United states into the Democracy of the united states

Raegab ended the cold war,
Truman dropped a nuke, very influential,
Eisenhower- i agree he should be replaced with Wilson,
and Polk got a buttload of terrotory for the united states, including texas, New mexico, and California
What bullshit.

This list makes sense if you're talking about popularity in their time, but that's not what we're talking about, right?

I think other presidents have given themselves similar powers in wartime.
Yep, thank our presidents for spitting on the Constitution then...

Yep, thank our presidents for spitting on the Constitution then...
Thank you, thank you so, so, much Lincoln etc.

This list makes sense if you're talking about popularity in their time, but that's not what we're talking about, right?
I personally believe that this is the correct order, exept for the eisenhower thing, it should be Mr. Woodrow. But these presidents were the most influential, and Important. Anybody wanna guess the bottom 10? Harrison and Garfield aren't ranked.

Guessing the top 10 presidents should be an easy task (assuming the basis of the top 10 is an interview of above average Americans), as long as I am not expected to get it in order.

1. George Washington
2. Thomas Jefferson
3. Abraham Lincoln
4. Franklin Delano Roosevelt
5. Dwight D. Eisenhower
6. Theodore Roosevelt
7. Andrew Jackson
8. Woodrow Wilson
9. Ronald Reagan
10. Bill Clinton

Silent Cal is the best president in IMHO.

If you're asking random idiots off the street, I'd be stunned if they could name 10 presidents.

Guessing the top 10 presidents should be an easy task (assuming the basis of the top 10 is an interview of above average Americans), as long as I am not expected to get it in order.

1. George Washington
2. Thomas Jefferson
3. Abraham Lincoln
4. Franklin Delano Roosevelt
5. Dwight D. Eisenhower
6. Theodore Roosevelt
7. Andrew Jackson
8. Woodrow Wilson
9. Ronald Reagan
10. Bill Clinton
instead of clinton and wilson, it was Polk and Truman

Nixon
Ford
Bush jr.
Bush
Hoover
Van Buren
Harding
Taft
Buchanan
Cleveland


Good enough?

Ronald Reagan should not be on the list. Neither should Andrew Jackson.

That is, if we're talking about best presidents. If we're talking about the most influential, then of course both should be on the list.

Data was drawn out of a recent survey, so it's not just some idiot babbling

You're right. It was a whole bunch of idiots babbling.

Polk? That's like putting Garfield in the number one slot!

Nixon
Ford
Bush jr.
Bush
Hoover
Van Buren
Harding
Taft
Buchanan
Cleveland


Good enough?
5/10
you need to develop your answer. these presidents sucked. They were useless. that's what were lookin for

I personally believe that this is the correct order, exept for the eisenhower thing, it should be Mr. Woodrow. But these presidents were the most influential, and Important. Anybody wanna guess the bottom 10? Harrison and Garfield aren't ranked.

Which Harrison? There were two.

Polk? That's like putting Garfield in the number one slot!
Polk was a great president

Polk was a great president
Just like Grand Ol' Lincoln.

Which Harrison? There were two.
Sorry. William Henry Harrison

Polk was a great president
Started a few wars and his presidency set into motion the chain of events that would lead to the civil war.

why o why do people bother to ask TRIVIA questions on the INTERNET!!! its not like there is a treasure chest of info at your fingertips.... :rolleyes:

Raegab ended the cold war,
Truman dropped a nuke, very influential,
Eisenhower- i agree he should be replaced with Wilson,
and Polk got a buttload of terrotory for the united states, including texas, New mexico, and California

See, this is the problem with discussing geo-politics with Americans, it becomes awfully American-centred. Reagan ended the Cold War? And Gorbachev/reform of the State Capitalist system in the Soviet Union had nothing to do with it? Be honest, it just happened on his watch, he didn't go seeking it, like Detente was sought before him.

Dropping a nuke doesn't make you influential - he didn't start funding for the Manhattan project, after all, and most other Presidents would have done the same, in the situation. I suppose you could bring in the Marshall plan, yeah, thats a good point.

Eisenhower pretty much made a virtue of inaction. This had good points, but it meant he sat back and let McCarthy get away with stuff because "i am not getting into the gutter with that man"

I'm wary of the Polk one, but not going to argue that.

Started a few wars and his presidency set into motion the chain of events that would lead to the civil war.
hmmmmmm............... he accomplished all his goals, expanded the united states and worked his ass off

Jackson made the Republic of the United states into the Democracy of the united states


The US isn't a true democracy; true democracies don't exist. The US is, in fact, a Constitution-based federal republic with strong democratic tradition. That's not really something to be proud of.

I believe that FDR and Washington were America's best Presidents. There were other good presidents, but these two were the best.
Lincoln was not. He was determined to hold the Union together, even if it didn't want to be. Apparently he doesn't understand that if unions are created by the consent of several groups, those same groups should be allowed to leave. I bet he didn't believe in divorce.

If you don't agree, read this example, then think some more:
'Suppose a woman — with plenty of personal faults herself, let that be stipulated — desired to leave her husband: partly because he made a regular practice, in order to go out and get drunk, of stealing money she had earned herself by raising chickens or taking in laundry; and partly because he'd already demonstrated a proclivity for domestic violence the first time she'd complained about his stealing.

Now, when he stood in the doorway and beat her to a bloody pulp to keep her home, would we memorialize him as a hero? Or would we treat him like a dangerous lunatic who should be locked up, if for no other reason, then for trying to maintain the appearance of a relationship where there wasn't a relationship any more? What value, we would ask, does he find in continuing to possess her in an involuntary association, when her heart and mind had left him long ago?'

Polk?!

POLK?!

POLK?!

Yup, I'm done with this thread.

5/10
you need to develop your answer. these presidents sucked. They were useless. that's what were lookin for
5/10?!
I hope you don't mean I got five out of ten right!

I believe that FDR and Washington were America's best Presidents. There were others, but these two were the best.
Lincoln was not. He was determined to hold the Union together, even if it didn't want to be. Apparently he doesn't understand that if unions are created by the consent of several groups, those same groups should be allowed to leave. I bet he didn't believe in divorce.

If you don't agree, read this example, then think some more:
'Suppose a woman — with plenty of personal faults herself, let that be stipulated — desired to leave her husband: partly because he made a regular practice, in order to go out and get drunk, of stealing money she had earned herself by raising chickens or taking in laundry; and partly because he'd already demonstrated a proclivity for domestic violence the first time she'd complained about his stealing.

Now, when he stood in the doorway and beat her to a bloody pulp to keep her home, would we memorialize him as a hero? Or would we treat him like a dangerous lunatic who should be locked up, if for no other reason, then for trying to maintain the appearance of a relationship where there wasn't a relationship any more? What value, we would ask, does he find in continuing to possess her in an involuntary association, when her heart and mind had left him long ago?'

In the example, however, the wife would have to have a black slave who she didn't want to free, even though the husband did...

See, this is the problem with discussing geo-politics with Americans, it becomes awfully American-centred. Reagan ended the Cold War? And Gorbachev/reform of the State Capitalist system in the Soviet Union had nothing to do with it? Be honest, it just happened on his watch, he didn't go seeking it, like Detente was sought before him.

Dropping a nuke doesn't make you influential - he didn't start funding for the Manhattan project, after all, and most other Presidents would have done the same, in the situation. I suppose you could bring in the Marshall plan, yeah, thats a good point.

Eisenhower pretty much made a virtue of inaction. This had good points, but it meant he sat back and let McCarthy get away with stuff because "i am not getting into the gutter with that man"

I'm wary of the Polk one, but not going to argue that.
sorry. The cold war ting, were talking americans and he was just as important in the ending of it as Gorbachev.
Plus, if Roosevelt hadnt died, we wouldn't have used a nuke. We had a "D-day" in the pacific planned, the largest invasion history would have ever known. And how can you say the nuke wasn't influential?

hmmmmmm............... he accomplished all his goals, expanded the united states and worked his ass off
He made the US larger..wa-hoo.

hmmmmmm............... he accomplished all his goals, expanded the united states and worked his ass off
Nah. 54 40 or fight.

5/10?!
I hope you don't mean I got five out of ten right!
Yup. they were, in worst to least worst
Buchanan
Harding
Pierce
Johnson
Fillmore
Tyler
Carter
Taylor
Nixon
Hoover
and benjamen harrison.

What a terrible list, unless you're doing it by influence.

Buchanon isn't the worst, Jackson or Lincoln perhaps.

They are:

Larry
Curly
Mo
Shemp
Heckle
Jeckle
Tom
Jerry
Penn
Teller

I believe Shemp is President right now, in fact. :D

I'll use the list I made several months ago in another thread:
This is my list of 41 presidents from greatest to least. This excludes President Bush and counts President Cleveland once. This list is based solely on the president while he was in office. No work before or after counts:
1. Abraham Lincoln
2. George Washington
3. Franklin Roosevelt
4. Teddy Roosevelt
5. Woodrow Wilson
6. Thomas Jefferson
7. Harry S Truman
8. John Adams
9. Ronald Reagan
10. John Fitzgerald Kennedy
11. James Knox Polk
12. Grover Cleveland
13. Andrew Jackson
14. James Madison
15. Martin van Buren
16. Rutherford Birchard Hayes
17. William Howard Taft
18. James Monroe
19. John Quincy Adams
20. William McKinley
21. Benjamin Harrison
22. George Herbert Walker Bush
23. Dwight David Eisenhower
24. Chester Alan Arthur
25. William Jefferson Clinton
26. John Tyler
27. Zachary Taylor
28. Millard Fillmore
29. Franklin Pierce
30. James Earl Carter
31. William Henry Harrison
32. James Abram Garfield
33. Andrew Johnson
34. Calvin Coolidge
35. Lyndon Baines Johnson
36. Ulysses S. Grant
37. Richard Milhous Nixon
38. Gerald Ford (Leslie King)
39. James Buchanan
40. Herbert Hoover
41. Warren G. Harding

Nah. 54 40 or fight.


Canada deserves land too! Greedy American!

What a terrible list, unless you're doing it by influence.

Buchanon isn't the worst, Jackson or Lincoln perhaps.
his last words as president (buchanon that is) were: "Mr.Lincoln, if you are as happy going into the white house, as i am leaving, your a very happy man?" he sounds lke a good president?

In the example, however, the wife would have to have a black slave who she didn't want to free, even though the husband did...

So you believe that justifies domestic violence and abuse?
And don't forget, that Yankees owned slaves too. The point of the argument is not slaves, since really both sides had them, but secession. Is a government founded by the idea of secession correct to then ban its states that right?

And you didn't answer the question. Is the man correct in beating his girlfriend to maintain their relationship?

The nuke would have been used, otherwise why did America and Britain spend millions developing it in the Manhatten Project?

As for the Reagan/Gorbachev thing, well, who knows, Gorbachev was probs more for ending the cold war than Reagan, but then again, the USSR was collapsing from within due to economic ruin and pollitical struggles. Who knows, can't really be answered, this will be argued by historians till the cows come home! Its just one of those questions that is so subjective it can't be answered, and the

"What If the cold war did become a hot war, would it signify the end of the world, or were Russia and the USA so afraid of MAD that they would not fire on each other, and allow their satellite states to take the brunt?"

This can NEVER be answered, as it never happened.

Woodrow was an idealist, but then again, if his policies (the 14 point plan) was implemented in 1918 in the Treaty of Versailles, it is unlikely Hitler would have found it so 'easy' to come to power.

Truman, was hopeless at foreign policy, Eisenhower was a national hero, and much better at foreign power and talking with Kruschev, the death of Stalin, and Eisenhower/Kruschev coming to power of course led to the first thaw from 1953-56 so that was an achievement of sort.

JFK...his handling of the cuban crisis was well executed, (what would have happened if those ships hadn't turned around) and of course the space race.

This is an outsider looking in, so i would only see the foreign policy. However, Roosevelts, economic policy after The Wall Street Policy were frankly amaxing...he turned America from a debt ridden country in 1930, to a prospourous country with low unemployment and people buying cars and a fully functioning war economy in a decade, incredible.

Also i only know the Modern Presidents, so there are doubtless older ones, that people like myself don't know, like Americans wouldn't know UK Primeministers of yester year.

my 2 Cents.

Graham

The nuke would have been used, otherwise why did America and Britain spend millions developing it in the Manhatten Project?

As for the Reagan/Gorbachev thing, well, who knows, Gorbachev was probs more for ending the cold war than Reagan, but then again, the USSR was collapsing from within due to economic ruin and pollitical struggles. Who knows, can't really be answered, this will be argued by historians till the cows come home! Its just one of those questions that is so subjective it can't be answered, and the

"What If the cold war did become a hot war, would it signify the end of the world, or were Russia and the USA so afraid of MAD that they would not fire on each other, and allow their satellite states to take the brunt?"

This can NEVER be answered, as it never happened.

Woodrow was an idealist, but then again, if his policies (the 14 point plan) was implemented in 1918 in the Treaty of Versailles, it is unlikely Hitler would have found it so 'easy' to come to power.

Truman, was hopeless at foreign policy, Eisenhower was a national hero, and much better at foreign power and talking with Kruschev, the death of Stalin, and Eisenhower/Kruschev coming to power of course led to the first thaw from 1953-56 so that was an achievement of sort.

JFK...his handling of the cuban crisis was well executed, (what would have happened if those ships hadn't turned around) and of course the space race.

This is an outsider looking in, so i would only see the foreign policy. However, Roosevelts, economic policy after The Wall Street Policy were frankly amaxing...he turned America from a debt ridden country in 1930, to a prospourous country with low unemployment and people buying cars and a fully functioning war economy in a decade, incredible.

Also i only know the Modern Presidents, so there are doubtless older ones, that people like myself don't know, like Americans wouldn't know UK Primeministers of yester year.

my 2 Cents.

Graham

You know, i studied American History at Keele uni...

god, them were the days. Is Mark Jancovich still working there?

So you believe that justifies domestic violence and abuse?
And don't forget, that Yankees owned slaves too. The point of the argument is not slaves, since really both sides had them, but secession. Is a government founded by the idea of secession correct to then ban its states that right?

And you didn't answer the question. Is the man correct in beating his girlfriend to maintain their relationship?

There is only one justification for rebellion...

if you win.

The Confederacy didn't. Therefore, it was a bad rebellion :)

So you believe that justifies domestic violence and abuse?
And don't forget, that Yankees owned slaves too. The point of the argument is not slaves, since really both sides had them, but secession. Is a government founded by the idea of secession correct to then ban its states that right?

And you didn't answer the question. Is the man correct in beating his girlfriend to maintain their relationship?

If you don't like that interpretation, lets try a more accurate one:

Your scenario plus: both members of the couple sell heroin to kids. The man quits and turns himself in, urging his girlfriend to do the same. The girlfriend tries to run away to another state to keep up her heroin business. The guy beats her to a pulp because he's mad she's leaving, then turns her in to the police.

It's not nice, but you could say its justified, at least from an ends-based standpoint.

The nuke would have been used, otherwise why did America and Britain spend millions developing it in the Manhatten Project?

As for the Reagan/Gorbachev thing, well, who knows, Gorbachev was probs more for ending the cold war than Reagan, but then again, the USSR was collapsing from within due to economic ruin and pollitical struggles. Who knows, can't really be answered, this will be argued by historians till the cows come home! Its just one of those questions that is so subjective it can't be answered, and the

"What If the cold war did become a hot war, would it signify the end of the world, or were Russia and the USA so afraid of MAD that they would not fire on each other, and allow their satellite states to take the brunt?"

This can NEVER be answered, as it never happened.

Woodrow was an idealist, but then again, if his policies (the 14 point plan) was implemented in 1918 in the Treaty of Versailles, it is unlikely Hitler would have found it so 'easy' to come to power.

Truman, was hopeless at foreign policy, Eisenhower was a national hero, and much better at foreign power and talking with Kruschev, the death of Stalin, and Eisenhower/Kruschev coming to power of course led to the first thaw from 1953-56 so that was an achievement of sort.

JFK...his handling of the cuban crisis was well executed, (what would have happened if those ships hadn't turned around) and of course the space race.

This is an outsider looking in, so i would only see the foreign policy. However, Roosevelts, economic policy after The Wall Street Policy were frankly amaxing...he turned America from a debt ridden country in 1930, to a prospourous country with low unemployment and people buying cars and a fully functioning war economy in a decade, incredible.

Also i only know the Modern Presidents, so there are doubtless older ones, that people like myself don't know, like Americans wouldn't know UK Primeministers of yester year.

my 2 Cents.

Graham
sadly, most americans dont even know the modern presidents. Plus, X-day was going to be used rather than a nuke. They were going to cancel funding because of thier ockiness on this plan, but Roosevelt died, thus truman took over, and the rest is history

Lol i don;t know, i go for freshers next week...changed my sig a bit early!

I am studying Human Geog and History. I find the cold war so fascinating, the What Ifs and constant tensions, how did anybody live!? lol!

He probs is, academics don't really move aorund much, there is probs a staff list on the keele webside (www.keele.ac.uk) if you wanted to find out.

Graham

There is only one justification for rebellion...

if you win.

The Confederacy didn't. Therefore, it was a bad rebellion :)
Bingo!

sadly, most americans dont even know the modern presidents. Plus, X-day was going to be used rather than a nuke. They were going to cancel funding because of thier ockiness on this plan, but Roosevelt died, thus truman took over, and the rest is history

Sorry, if you don't mind me asking, what was the X-Day plan? Havn't heard of that!

Graham

The confederacy was like a big drunk dumbass trying to start a bar fight.

Sorry, if you don't mind me asking, what was the X-Day plan? Havn't heard of that!

Graham
Massive invasion of Japan including troops from the USA, Britain, France, China, Australia, The U.S.S.R, and a bit of help from india. It was like D-day only way bigger

There is only one justification for rebellion...

if you win.

The Confederacy didn't. Therefore, it was a bad rebellion :)

Rebellions can be effective without being fully victorious. Canada's rebellions of 1837 were immediate failures due to lack of man power and planning, but Great Britain took notice of the political unrest, sent Lord Durham to Canada to write a report, and now, Canada has a lovely government.

sadly, most americans dont even know the modern presidents. Plus, X-day was going to be used rather than a nuke. They were going to cancel funding because of thier ockiness on this plan, but Roosevelt died, thus truman took over, and the rest is history

Also, in addition to the X-day plan and nuking Japan, the Frank Report was also floating around. Personally, I think that would've been the best option.

Also, in addition to the X-day plan and nuking Japan, the Frank Report was also floating around. Personally, I think that would've been the best option.
meh

Massive invasion of Japan including troops from the USA, Britain, France, China, Australia, The U.S.S.R, and a bit of help from india. It was like D-day only way bigger

Wow...!

Thank You very much!

Graham

Rebellions can be effective without being fully victorious. Canada's rebellions of 1837 were immediate failures due to lack of man power and planning, but Great Britain took notice of the political unrest, sent Lord Durham to Canada to write a report, and now, Canada has a lovely government.

Then they won politically instead of militarily. I wasn't necessarily talking of military victory, just achieving the goals of your rebellion.

The Confederacy didn't do any of the above.

Wow...!

Thank You very much!

Graham
sure, anytime

The American Civil War is frankly boring, the only interesting bit is the introduction of iron clad warships and machine guns, thats about it. Not really revolutionary in the nature of warfare.

Go across the pond, and look at European History at this time, Napoleon, Wars of reunification, Britain Vs France, Prussia Vs France, Prussia Vs Europe (lol!), so interesting.

If you look at the start of this period, the weapons they were using were muskets and bayonets. Advance through the 100 years, and they are using machine guns, trains, steam ships, cannons, and of course, using tactics that are instantly recognisable today, well except the suicidal tactic of frontal assault which Generals STILL didn't work out didn't work till 1917! But the tactic of envelopment, and dividing your army into corps and divsions, can be clearly seen from this period. Much much more interesting, and revolutionary in the nature and outcome of warfare than the American Civil war could ever be!

Graham

You support the Confederacy? You are a fan of slavery then?

Thus starts the idiots reasoning of "THE CIVIL WAR WAS ONLY ABOUT SLAVERY AND I'M A BLUNGERING IDIOT".

If you want to argue privatly, PM ME. I don't want to change the topic of this thread.

The American Civil War is frankly boring, the only interesting bit is the introduction of iron clad warships and machine guns, thats about it. Not really revolutionary in the nature of warfare.

Go across the pond, and look at European History at this time, Napoleon, Wars of reunification, Britain Vs France, Prussia Vs France, Prussia Vs Europe (lol!), so interesting.

If you look at the start of this period, the weapons they were using were muskets and bayonets. Advance through the 100 years, and they are using machine guns, trains, steam ships, cannons, and of course, using tactics that are instantly recognisable today, well except the suicidal tactic of frontal assault which Generals STILL didn't work out didn't work till 1917! But the tactic of envelopment, and dividing your army into corps and divsions, can be clearly seen from this period. Much much more interesting, and revolutionary in the nature and outcome of warfare than the American Civil war could ever be!

Graham
William P. Sherman introduced the tactics of "bringing the war to the populace" to the united states. That would be a big new flashy tactic. This tactic of raping and stealing, and burning villages is really how the union won. So the union sortta was a bad dude in this respect

No clue, my man. But if GW is on there, I'm going to hang myself.

William P. Sherman introduced the tactics of "bringing the war to the populace" to the united states. That would be a big new flashy tactic. This tactic of raping and stealing, and burning villages is really how the union won. So the union sortta was a bad dude in this respect

I am sorry i can't comment on this, i don't know enough about the American Civil War to make a justified argument.

But yeh, raping and stealing, does portray the Union in a bad light certainly!

Graham

No clue, my man. But if GW is on there, I'm going to hang myself.
hes # 19

his last words as president (buchanon that is) were: "Mr.Lincoln, if you are as happy going into the white house, as i am leaving, your a very happy man?" he sounds lke a good president?
Yes.

--snip--

Dude. How, by any criteria, can you list G. H. W. Bush above Clinton? Mr. "read my lips," didn't accomplish anything besides bombing the f out of a 3rd rate power.

Yes.
dumbass

hes # 19

What the fuck? GEORGE W BUSH IS #19!? His term isn't even over yet!

There is only one justification for rebellion...

if you win.

The Confederacy didn't. Therefore, it was a bad rebellion :)

And Red-Staters say Democrats are poor losers...hey, it's not 150 years since 2000!

What the fuck? GEORGE W BUSH IS #19!? His term isn't even over yet!
well, unless the USA ends, he cant get worse really. maybe better?

well, unless the USA ends, he cant get worse really. maybe better?
Zing!

mwahahahahahahaahahahahaasa

William P. Sherman introduced the tactics of "bringing the war to the populace" to the united states. That would be a big new flashy tactic. This tactic of raping and stealing, and burning villages is really how the union won. So the union sortta was a bad dude in this respect

That may have been new to the US, but Europe had been like that since the middle ages.

Dude. How, by any criteria, can you list G. H. W. Bush above Clinton? Mr. "read my lips," didn't accomplish anything besides bombing the f out of a 3rd rate power.
3rd world

That may have been new to the US, but Europe had been like that since the middle ages.
yes, but america is now a world power, wouldn't you say? For all we know, this could have helped achieve that

Dude. How, by any criteria, can you list G. H. W. Bush above Clinton? Mr. "read my lips," didn't accomplish anything besides bombing the f out of a 3rd rate power.
Mr. Clinton didn't bomb the people who bombed us. Being a Conservative, I'm slightly against that....also that whole impeachment thing knocked him down a few pegs...Democrats seem to forget that...

dumbass
Wow, how mature. :rolleyes:

Washington didn't really want a second term, but he took one. Simply because a president said he's glad not to hold the office anymore, doesn't mean he's "bad".

The American Civil War is frankly boring, the only interesting bit is the introduction of iron clad warships and machine guns, thats about it. Not really revolutionary in the nature of warfare.

Go across the pond, and look at European History at this time, Napoleon, Wars of reunification, Britain Vs France, Prussia Vs France, Prussia Vs Europe (lol!), so interesting.

If you look at the start of this period, the weapons they were using were muskets and bayonets. Advance through the 100 years, and they are using machine guns, trains, steam ships, cannons, and of course, using tactics that are instantly recognisable today, well except the suicidal tactic of frontal assault which Generals STILL didn't work out didn't work till 1917! But the tactic of envelopment, and dividing your army into corps and divsions, can be clearly seen from this period. Much much more interesting, and revolutionary in the nature and outcome of warfare than the American Civil war could ever be!

Graham

You said you don't know very much about the American Civil War in a later post. So, why are you so arrogant as to assume that it's boring by comparison? I've studied both European and American history extensively and I'd say that European skirmishes get really old, really fast. If you've read about one of 'em, you've read about all of 'em. God, Eurocentrism irritates the hell out of me. Yeah, you guys are the only one with the cool history. Americans have just been twiddlin' their thumbs for the past three hundred years.

The American Civil War is frankly boring, the only interesting bit is the introduction of iron clad warships and machine guns, thats about it. Not really revolutionary in the nature of warfare.


Iam sure there Was Ironclad type ships in the Crimean War

THere is one thing the the American Civil War showed was that Most modern wars would end up in trench warfare and the decline of the massed Infantry ranks though no seemed to learn form that till WWI

"Can you name the top 10 U.S presidents?"

Um ... probably not, but Grover Cleveland has GOT to be in there somewhere! :D

They called him "Silent Cal," and what we really need is someone who acts more than he talks! Draft General Honore!!!

"Can you name the top 10 U.S presidents?"

Um ... probably not, but Grover Cleveland has GOT to be in there somewhere! :D

They called him "Silent Cal," and what we really need is someone who acts more than he talks! Draft General Honore!!!
Grover Cleveland was the man. We need more guys like him

Grover Cleveland was the man. We need more guys like him
:D

:D
No, your hidden message didn't escape me. We need a man who says you can do whatever you want. :p

Lincoln had to act that way to keep the union unified. "Tyrant"? I think other presidents have given themselves similar powers in wartime.
Fat lot of good unification's done us. Slavery was on its way out anyways, and as separate nations they could have made just the south Jesusland instead of the whole US.

Why do most people consider Reagan great?

I think it's mostly because of Reaganomics...he and Margaret Thatcher basically implemented the same economic changes in their nations at the same time, moving from Keynesian beliefs to Hayek theory as smoothly as such a thing can be done. Reagan's free-market economic policies turned the economic state of the nation around and it was all uphill from there.

Of course, the same thing happened for the first years after Keynesian beliefs and price controls were implemented, but we saw how that began to decline...as did Reagan, resulting in Reaganomics.

In my view:

1. Johannes Nader
2. Henry David Thoreau (the senior)
3. Jaan Leniss Venir
4. Samuel Devereux
5. Hiram Winston Wallace
6. Lawrence Oannes Fulton
7. Isaac Whitman
8. "Shura" Alexander Aiuto
9. William Randolph Hotchkys
10. Thomas Riiser-Larsen

1. Cobra Commander
2. A Partially Eaten Bologna Sandwich
3. That guy
4. Mario
5. A Guinea Pig from Iowa
6. Micheal Bolton
7. Leeroy Jenkins
8. Guile (from Street fighter)
9. The Burger King mascot
10. A Goat

3rd world

Nothing wrong with my word choice there. If I had wanted to say 3rd world, I would have said 3rd world.

Data was drawn out of a recent survey, so it's not just some idiot babbling
So it's a lot of idiots babbling, as opposed to just one. :D

I think it matters who was polled. If you ask common people today they will say Reagan--but--When history looks at his policies it will be obvious his shadow covers every problem we have today. Then the Question is, ones that had the most influence, or one's that did the most good for the country. Again, Reagan has ruled the nation for 25 years--most of it negative.

With that in mind, my list is those that did the most good for the nation.

Washington--He gave up power, almost unknown, George III even couldn't believe it.

Jefferson--Expanded the nation and made it reach to both coasts.

Lincoln--Held the nation together in it's darkest hour

T Roosevelt---Pulled the nation into the progressive age. Ended the doldrums that extended 35 years following the Civil War. Made the nation an industrial power. Started the environmental movement with the establishment of the world's first "National Parks". Pretty good for the short time he served.

FD Roosevelt---Pulled the nation out of it's second and third darkest hours. The depression and WW II

Truman--Put the nation into world leadership, rebuilt Europe against popular objections, this more than anything else ended major war in Europe. People who are hungry and without hope fight, people with homes, jobs, and food don't

OK, that's only 6, but for the life of me I can't think of another that would deserve to be "one of the best". And that would cover more than the "top 10%".

The first three I'm almost sure will be

Washington
Lincoln
FDR

Ronald Reagan should not be on the list. Neither should Andrew Jackson.

That is, if we're talking about best presidents. If we're talking about the most influential, then of course both should be on the list.
Why is everyone railing on Jackson? He kept the USA together, somthing Lincoln had to fight a war for.

[Saint] Clinton isn't in the Top Ten? Whaa?

Why do most people consider Reagan great?

Successful media campaign. Most people have no idea the number of horrible things that Reagen and his cronies did. It's considered concpiracy theory to point out that he kept the Iranian hostages captive to help win the election from Carter, selling out our own people in a cheap political ploy.

They try to credit him with singlehandedly destroying the USSR and ending the Cold War, even though the Cold War had begun its decline under JFK. They've managed to convince people that it was somehow a legitimate military strategy to build enough weapons to destroy the entire USSR a thousand times so that they'd want to build enough to destroy us 1001 times, neglecting the simple mathematical impossibility of killing hundreds of millions of people more than once each.

There was world wide economic growth after a world-wide economic slump prior to his entering, but Reagan still managed to build record deficits despite this economic growth. He also invented what Bush Sr. rightly termed "Voodoo economics," in which debt can be paid off by borrowing more and spending more. Though that didn't stop Bush from doing the same thing when he realized that it was politically expedient. Conservatives credit Reagan with the world wide economic recovery, but Democrats with the debt. A debt that only began to decline under Clinton, but shot right back up under Bush Jr.