NationStates Jolt Archive

In your opinion, which U.S. Presidents were the best (or, if you hate them all, "least bad"), and which were the worst? You can name your least favorite and your favorite, or your top and bottom 5, or your top and bottom 10, whatever. Of course, you can also list your reasons for choosing the individuals you did, but you by no means have to.

This was mostly inspired by this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=590088) (I created this one to avoid further derailment of that topic from its main subject[s], Reagan and Thatcher).

The best is clearly Al Gore:

1.He invented the Internet
2.He very likely won the elections in 2000
3.He didn't make any mistake while being President - because he never had the chance to do it.

Blah blah FDR vs blah blah George W. Without a common frame of reference, I question the value of these. So instead of who was best, I'll simply admit my subjectivity:

My favourite is Lincoln, followed by LBJ, then Truman, then Ike. My least favourite is Pierce (Buchanan I think was slightly more a victim of circumstances), followed by Andrew Johnson. (Harding was also terrible, but it's hard to dislike the guy.)

In my view the most overrated are Jackson, Theodore Roosevelt, and Kennedy; the most underrated are John Quincy Adams, McKinley, and LBJ. I'm not sure Nixon is so much 'underrated' as misunderstood.

Woodrow Wilson, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton are the best of the 20th Century (in my opinion).

Harry Truman, LBJ, and Ronald Reagan are on the bottom of my list.

My favorite of all-time is Nixon, and my least favorite is Andrew Jackson.

The worst are george w. and clinton
Well I don't like any of them. With their demagogy, propaganda, probably false religiousness and patriotism. They just want to get more and more money and they will do anything to do so.

favorites of 20th century: Nixon, Reagan, and Harding

Dislikes of the 20th century: LBJ, Carter, and Ford

All time favorite Andrew Jackson.

Least favorite of all time Madison

Best: Polk.
Worst: Polk.

I'll go make some popcorn....

Best: Polk.
Worst: Polk.

I can see that. I was a bit conflicted on where I should put him, so I left him off my list.

I can see that. I was a bit conflicted on where I should put him, so I left him off my list.
If you are going to (unwittingly) help a country on its way to civil war, trebling the size of your country is a pretty stylish way of doing it.

I suppose one could also make the argument that Harrison was also the best and worst president out there.

If you are going to (unwittingly) help a country on its way to civil war, trebling the size of your country is a pretty stylish way of doing it.

We live upon the benefits provided us by the evil actions of others. Polk was a expansionist dedicated to serving his country. He contributed to making America great through wars, he helped turn us in a friggin' powerhouse. Meanwhile, he really did ruin our unification. But if had not brought in the slave-states, then maybe there would have been no Civil War...yet there still would have been slavery.

I respect him for his dedication to his job of improving America, but I am troubled about his bellicose Administration.

I suppose one could also make the argument that Harrison was also the best and worst president out there.

:tongue:

Lincoln was a National traitor...war for what?? imposing the will of a select few through military action?? Totally opposite of the reasons for the Revolution. he was disgrace. And when things didn't go the way he wanted, he brought slavery into the mix, yet allowed 3 'Northern' states to keep and use slaves for fear of Washington being surrounded by 'Southern' states.

The best?? mI would have to go with Reagan, since he was a Goldwater follower...the GOP just couldn't sell Goldwater to the American public...

Lincoln was a National traitor...war for what?? imposing the will of a select few through military action?? Totally opposite of the reasons for the Revolution. he was disgrace. And when things didn't go the way he wanted, he brought slavery into the mix, yet allowed 3 'Northern' states to keep and use slaves for fear of Washington being surrounded by 'Southern' states.

The best?? mI would have to go with Reagan, since he was a Goldwater follower...the GOP just couldn't sell Goldwater to the American public...

You live in the South, dont you?

Lincoln was a National traitor...war for what?? imposing the will of a select few through military action??

Should the South have complained? They were unjustly imposing their will upon slaves.

Totally opposite of the reasons for the Revolution. he was disgrace. And when things didn't go the way he wanted, he brought slavery into the mix, yet allowed 3 'Northern' states to keep and use slaves for fear of Washington being surrounded by 'Southern' states.


Yes, I know he was a hypocrite.

The best?? mI would have to go with Reagan, since he was a Goldwater follower...the GOP just couldn't sell Goldwater to the American public...

Right. Because Goldwater was an idiot, even Nixon cautiously said that. Christ, to think this country had to choose between him and LBJ.

You live in the South, dont you?

The land where "States Rights" means the liberty to oppress one's fellows.

Leslie Nielson was pretty bad.

The land where "States Rights" means the liberty to oppress one's fellows.

I can smell a southerner's arguement against Lincoln from a mile away.

Usually because of the amount of history it requires one to ignore and the amount of disbelief one must suspend in order for said arguement to not be laughable.

Truman was the best.

he did what was necessary, "the buck stops here".

instead of being a meek little complaint haberdasher as was expected, he took bold steps to end WW II, and then instituted the Marshall Plan; he promoted desegregation of the military, and got the US ready for the next half century.

Eisenhower was also cool, bringing prosperity in spite of the flood of returning soldiers (in contrast to the post war crisis of the early 20s)
started the interstate system
and warned of the military-industrial elite (which i nevertheless hope to foster)

Buchanan was a simp at the worst possible time, a milquetoast in a crisis. yipes!

Harding was a fool and a joke, and a thief.

I can smell a southerner's arguement against Lincoln from a mile away.

Usually because of the amount of history it requires one to ignore and the amount of disbelief one must suspend in order for said arguement to not be laughable.

I think the dead giveaway is accusing him of starting the war.

Clinton was the best. The economy was good and we had no major wars. William Henry Harrison was the worst. He didn't have a chance to do the country some good because he has a cold and then pneumonia, which killed him. He was only president one month and was sick the whole time or at least close to that

Clinton was the best. The economy was good and we had no major wars.

He bombed Kosovo, and his war on drugs failed. He was also a hypocritical liar.

He bombed Kosovo,
After a request for aid.
and his war on drugs failed.
He didnt start the war on drugs.
He was also a hypocritical liar.
Liar, yes. Hypocrit?

He bombed Kosovo,

Pretty damned insignificant compared to other Presidents.

and his war on drugs failed.

So did Reagan's.

He was also a hypocritical liar.

Like every President.

We live upon the benefits provided us by the evil actions of others. Polk was a expansionist dedicated to serving his country. He contributed to making America great through wars, he helped turn us in a friggin' powerhouse. Meanwhile, he really did ruin our unification. But if had not brought in the slave-states, then maybe there would have been no Civil War...yet there still would have been slavery.

I respect him for his dedication to his job of improving America, but I am troubled about his bellicose Administration.
Absolutely.

Although, having thought about it, had the Compromise of 1850 divided the New Mexico & Utah Territories along the Missouri Compromise line instead of applying Popular Soverignty things might have turned out differently. I know Henry Clay was considering this before he left the project in the hands of Stephen Douglas. Without Popular Soverignty being established as a 'solution' to the slavery question, there would be no Kansas-Nebraska, the Democrats might have remained united, no Bleeding Kansas and no John Brown. Without the agro over slavery in the territories, no Dred Scott.

But, of course, that's just conjecture.:tongue:

Buchanan was a simp at the worst possible time, a milquetoast in a crisis. yipes!
Buchanan is hardly going to be up there with Washington or Roosevelt, but I will say this: that Buchanan's politics had the support of a reasonable number of politicians and were the result of a decade of policy towards slavery in the territories. The crisis was unfolding long before he took office, and by the time he took office, his choices were fairly limited.

I'm not saying this out of his defense, I'm saying this out of fairness towards Fillmore and Pierce, who all should have a slice of blame pie.:p

I suppose one could also make the argument that Harrison was also the best and worst president out there.

Harrison was the best. He wasn't in office long enough to do any significant damage.

The great:
1. George Washington
2. Abraham Lincoln
3. Theodore Roosevelt
4. Franklin D. Roosevelt

The awful:
1. Dubass (aka George W. Bush)
2. Ulysses S. Grant
3. Rutherford B. Hayes
4. Benjamin Harrison

Mostly mediocre in between, and even though he's not one of the best Presidents we've ever had, my sentimental favourite was Gerald Ford, considering the difficult circumstances that led to his first becoming Vice President, then later President.

LOL, Dubass. Did you come up with that? :D

Best: Nixon (ignore the whole Watergate thing and paranoia and he no longer seems "evil"), Lincoln (the nation was already splitting up before he took office. Knew when to compromise and when not to. Awesome hat.), Teddy Roosevelt (big on conservation, had the whole "speak softly and carry a big stick" thing going on, badass that could kick Chuck Norris's ass any day of the weak and died in his sleep because death couldn't take him while he was awake, etc.)

worst: Buchanon (how the hell can you let the nation break apart under your watch?)

LOL, Dubass. Did you come up with that? :D

I've been saying since (at least) 2001!

He bombed Kosovo, and his war on drugs failed. He was also a hypocritical liar.
Kosovo was just a puny, little war compared to idiot shrubya's wars. The war on drugs was not originally his and no president has won it. Most presidents in the past two hundred years have been less than honest. I learned they called him the Teflon president because the economy was good, so nothing stuck to him. I guess the economy was the Teflon surrounding him. What other president was that non-sticky? Btw, anyone suprised at my views on best and worst president?

I've been saying since (at least) 2001!

It's good. :)

Btw, anyone suprised at my views on best and worst president?

I am. Btw, I've said this before, but I love your avatar. :p

Kosovo was just a puny, little war compared to idiot shrubya's wars. The war on drugs was not originally his and no president has won it. Most presidents in the past two hundred years have been less than honest. I learned they called him the Teflon president because the economy was good, so nothing stuck to him. I guess the economy was the Teflon surrounding him. What other president was that non-sticky? Btw, anyone suprised at my views on best and worst president?

That was Reagan's name, I believe.

Harding was a fool and a joke, and a thief.

Why? Cause he was black (http://www.wikiality.com/Warren_G._Harding)? Racist.





:p

Least-worst:

FDR
Abraham Lincoln
Thomas Jefferson
Bill Clinton
John Tyler

Honorable mention: Martin Van Buren

Worst:

Ronald Reagan
GWB
Andrew Jackson
James Polk
Herbert Hoover

(Dis)Honorable mention: Dwight Eisenhower

Lincoln was a National traitor...war for what?? imposing the will of a select few through military action?? Totally opposite of the reasons for the Revolution. he was disgrace. And when things didn't go the way he wanted, he brought slavery into the mix,Slavery was always in the mix, it was the reason (many) Southern states seceded in the first place.

In all honesty, isn't it a tad soon to be calling G.W Bush the worst? I mean.... we haven't even seen what the effects of his final policies are yet! :tongue:

Least-worst:

FDR
Abraham Lincoln
Thomas Jefferson
Bill Clinton
John Tyler

Honorable mention: Martin Van Buren

Why Tyler and Van Buren? They usually rank near the top of right-libertarians' best/least bad Presidents lists. Ah well, guess we can't disagree all the time. :tongue:

(Dis)Honorable mention: Dwight Eisenhower

Amen. That bastard should rank very low on every list, IMO, for Operation Ajax and Operation PBSUCCESS, especially the latter.

Slavery was always in the mix, it was the reason (many) Southern states seceded in the first place.

One of the reasons. Tariffs were another.

Why Tyler and Van Buren? They usually rank near the top of right-libertarians' best/least bad Presidents lists. Ah well, guess we can't disagree all the time. :tongue::)

They, for the most part, tried to support pro-peace policies, though they had the misfortunate of inheriting a lot of crap from their predecessors.

Amen. That bastard should rank very low on every list, IMO, for Operation Ajax and Operation PBSUCCESS, especially the latter.Indeed. It seems silly that people wonder why Iran hates the U.S. and at the same time say how great Eisenhower was.

One of the reasons. Tariffs were another.Yes, one of the reasons, but still, it was always in the mix.

:)

They, for the most part, tried to support pro-peace policies, though they had the misfortunate of inheriting a lot of crap from their predecessors.

Ah, all right.

Indeed. It seems silly that people wonder why Iran hates the U.S. and at the same time say how great Eisenhower was.

No, silly. Haven't you heard? They hate us for our freedoms! ;)

Yes, one of the reasons, but still, it was always in the mix.

That's true.

Best Jed Bartlet
Worst Greg Stillson

Worst Greg Stillson

Agreed.

Best: Calvin Coolidge
Worst: JFK

I am. Btw, I've said this before, but I love your avatar. :p
How are you suprised? And why do you like my avatar? Cause it's so cute?

How are you suprised?

I've never heard W.H.H. ranked as the worst President, that's all.

And why do you like my avatar? Cause it's so cute?

Unbelievably so. :p

Blah blah FDR vs blah blah George W. Without a common frame of reference, I question the value of these. So instead of who was best, I'll simply admit my subjectivity:

My favourite is Lincoln, followed by LBJ, then Truman, then Ike. My least favourite is Pierce (Buchanan I think was slightly more a victim of circumstances), followed by Andrew Johnson. (Harding was also terrible, but it's hard to dislike the guy.)

In my view the most overrated are Jackson, Theodore Roosevelt, and Kennedy; the most underrated are John Quincy Adams, McKinley, and LBJ. I'm not sure Nixon is so much 'underrated' as misunderstood.

Andrew Jackson is overrated? I agree with most of your choices.

Why do you feel Andrew Jackson is overrated? Are we talking about "Old Hickory". Man tough audience these Americans. Not only was he a war hero but as commander-in-chief he wasn't so bad either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Jackson

In 1835, Jackson managed to reduce the federal debt to only $33,733.05, the lowest it had been since the first fiscal year of 1791.[20] President Jackson is the only president in United States history to have paid off the national debt.


Just for that one accomplishment he honored.

Andrew Jackson is overrated? I agree with most of your choices.

Why do you feel Andrew Jackson is overrated? Are we talking about "Old Hickory". Man tough audience these Americans. Not only was he a war hero but as commander-in-chief he wasn't so bad either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Jackson

In 1835, Jackson managed to reduce the federal debt to only $33,733.05, the lowest it had been since the first fiscal year of 1791.[20] President Jackson is the only president in United States history to have paid off the national debt.

Just for that one accomplishment he honored.Ethnic cleansing of Native Americans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Jackson#Indian_removal) is bad.

Lincoln was a National traitor...war for what?? imposing the will of a select few through military action?? Totally opposite of the reasons for the Revolution. he was disgrace. And when things didn't go the way he wanted, he brought slavery into the mix, yet allowed 3 'Northern' states to keep and use slaves for fear of Washington being surrounded by 'Southern' states.

The best?? mI would have to go with Reagan, since he was a Goldwater follower...the GOP just couldn't sell Goldwater to the American public...

Just guessing you have a pickup truck with a Dixie flag, real deer antlers, and a shotgun rack as well, right?

Ethnic cleansing of Native Americans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Jackson#Indian_removal) is bad.

Amen. While I do like some of Jackson's actions (namely killing the national bank), nothing excuses his policy toward the Native Americans.

Best: Herbert Hoover
Worst: FDR

Well, sort of anyway. I also like Teddy Roosevelt, Reagan, Adams II (because he tried so hard), Bush I, and Jefferson.

The but end of my list encompassed LBJ, Carter, and Bush II. I just avoid Civil War era Presidents altogether.

I just avoid Civil War era Presidents altogether.

How many are there, exactly?

How many are there, exactly?

Depending upon how you look at it either 1 (Lincoln) or 2 (Lincoln & Andrew Johnson).

Depending upon how you look at it either 1 (Lincoln) or 2 (Lincoln & Andrew Johnson).

I see the former.

"When a general asked Lincoln how the defeated Confederates should be treated, Lincoln replied, "Let 'em up easy."[56] Lincoln arrived back in Washington on the evening of April 9, 1865, the day Lee surrendered at Appomattox Court House in Virginia. The war was effectively over. The other rebel armies surrendered soon after, and there was no subsequent guerrilla warfare.[57]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln

I see the former.

"When a general asked Lincoln how the defeated Confederates should be treated, Lincoln replied, "Let 'em up easy."[56] Lincoln arrived back in Washington on the evening of April 9, 1865, the day Lee surrendered at Appomattox Court House in Virginia. The war was effectively over. The other rebel armies surrendered soon after, and there was no subsequent guerrilla warfare.[57]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln

The last battle ended May 13th 1865 (The battle of Palmeto Ranch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Palmito_Ranch)).

Also
On June 23, 1865, at Fort Towson in the Choctaw Nations' area of the Oklahoma Territory, Stand Watie signed a cease-fire agreement with Union representatives, becoming the last Confederate general in the field to stand down. The last Confederate ship to surrender was the CSS Shenandoah, on November 6, 1865, in Liverpool, England. These surrenders marked the conclusion of the American Civil War.
and
Jeffferson Davis was captured on May 10 and the surrender of the Department of Florida and South Georgia happened the same day. Confederate Brigadier General "Jeff" Meriwether Thompson surrendered his brigade the next day and the day following saw the surrender of the Confederate forces of North Georgia.

With Davis not being captured until May 10th it is very easy to argue that The Civil War was still going on at that point.

I generally consider Lincoln as the best, and Harding as the worst. Lincoln gets especially awesome marks for his hat, skill at wrestling, and amazing beard, suggested by a small girl and making him the most bad-ass of the presidents. Harding liked to golf a lot, and was a notorious drinker during Prohibition.

My top ten, in order of office: Washington, Jefferson, Polk, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Wilson, F.D. Roosevelt, Truman, Ike, and then the 'Kennedy-L.B. Johnson-Nixon' succession, since those three guys managed to both accomplish quite a lot, and yet also had their dark marks.

My top ten failures, in order of office: Tyler, Taylor, Filmore, Pierce, Buchanan, A. Johnson, Grant, Harding, Coolidge, and Carter.

I generally refuse to rank anything post George H.W. Bush, since I think the full measure of time has yet to weigh in on the administrations of Clinton and W. Bush.

Viva President Ronald Reagan.

I'm actually surprised that so few people listed Bush even in worst 5. I was sure that this thread would be a plethora of 'OMG BUSH SUX', OP notwithstanding.

No offense, NSG.

EDIT: Scratch that, 3rd post.

Best: Herbert Hoover


lulwat?

The last battle ended May 13th 1865 (The battle of Palmeto Ranch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Palmito_Ranch)).

Also

and


With Davis not being captured until May 10th it is very easy to argue that The Civil War was still going on at that point.

the war was effectively over. Most of the generals either stood down once they heard the news or withdrew to wait and see if another general would show himself to have Lee's brilliance.
Palmetto Ranch happened because the Texans did not have the news of the surrender of Lee.

In all honesty, isn't it a tad soon to be calling G.W Bush the worst?

No.

I'm actually surprised that so few people listed Bush even in worst 5. I was sure that this thread would be a plethora of 'OMG BUSH SUX', OP notwithstanding.

No offense, NSG.

EDIT: Scratch that, 3rd post.

It is really dangerous to decide on immediately on weather a president is good or bad. Best to wait at least 16 years and let historians pick apart his decisions and consequences.

It is really dangerous to decide on immediately on weather a president is good or bad. Best to wait at least 16 years and let historians pick apart his decisions and consequences.

Some could bear to keep that in mind...

whether*, btw.

Some could bear to keep that in mind...

whether*, btw.

Well of course it is every patriotic Americans duty to deride the president while he is in office.

Amen. While I do like some of Jackson's actions (namely killing the national bank), nothing excuses his policy toward the Native Americans.

Most government policies towards the aboriginals were bad.......

It is really dangerous to decide on immediately on weather a president is good or bad. Best to wait at least 16 years and let historians pick apart his decisions and consequences.

Remind the Cons about that with Clinton.....

Remind the Cons about that with Clinton.....

He's had 8 years. Don't even start, especially if you are one of the ones that judge Bush.

Remind the Cons about that with Clinton.....

I would have listed Clinton under one of my good presidents if it had been longer since his term.

He's had 8 years. Don't even start, especially if you are one of the ones that judge Bush.

I don't need to wait 16 years to know the shrub was a failure.

You one of those "clintondidit" types?

I don't need to wait 16 years to know the shrub was a failure.

You one of those "clintondidit" types?

Andrew Jackson was considered a great president immediately after he left office.
And Truman was considered a utter failure when he left office.

History and new information changes prospective. Best to give time for the issues and information to come to the surface.

Unbelievably so. :p

Aw, you never said anything kind about Borgia.

Andrew Jackson was considered a great president immediately after he left office.
And Truman was considered a utter failure when he left office.

History and new information changes prospective. Best to give time for the issues and information to come to the surface.

I'd like to see how historians can consider the destabilization of the Middle East as well the reversal of the nation's budget into the negatives a tremendous success.

I'd like to see how historians can consider the destabilization of the Middle East as well the reversal of the nation's budget into the negatives a tremendous success.

Well, people didn't like the extermination of two whole cities too much, now, did they?

I'd like to see how historians can consider the destabilization of the Middle East as well the reversal of the nation's budget into the negatives a tremendous success.

If China starts trying to grab oil-producing nations, the United States will have vital bases in the Middle East.

I'd like to see how historians can consider the destabilization of the Middle East as well the reversal of the nation's budget into the negatives a tremendous success.

We are currently at an all time low in deaths, and Iraq is at an all time high in oil production. It took 30 years for Truman to be vindicated by South Korea actually becoming a stable democracy. Lets us wait until the book is finally closed on Iraq before we cast it as a failure or a success.

Also the gitmo issue, it may be 50 years before we know what information was recovered and what attacks they allegedly prevented. Also historically the methods used to extract information were used under Truman, Ike, Kennedy, LBJ, and Nixon.

As for the deficit it was largely a good Deficit in that the interest rate was lower then the average rate of growth, which makes the bond easier to pay back than it would have been to tax it out of Americans.

Lincoln was a National traitor...war for what?? imposing the will of a select few through military action?? Totally opposite of the reasons for the Revolution. he was disgrace. And when things didn't go the way he wanted, he brought slavery into the mix, yet allowed 3 'Northern' states to keep and use slaves for fear of Washington being surrounded by 'Southern' states.

The best?? mI would have to go with Reagan, since he was a Goldwater follower...the GOP just couldn't sell Goldwater to the American public...

News flash: The Confederacy fired first at Fort Sumter.

News flash: The Confederacy fired first at Fort Sumter.

True, and they also succeeded with out Lincoln having any plans to end slavery. He was more than happy to let economic realities do that.

My top 5 (in the order they come to mind):
1. FDR - the New Deal
2. Lincoln - Holding the Union together and starting the federal abolition process
3. Teddy Roosevelt - the Pure Food and Drug Act
4. Washington - do I need to say more?
5. Clinton - had his successor continued his fiscal policy, we may be out of debt now
Honorable mention: Adams 2, Taft, Jefferson

Worst 5 (in the order they come to mind)
1. Jackson - Trail of Tears
2. Bush 43 - needless wars and massive debt because of them
3. Eisenhower - Vietnam, Iran, Guatemala
4. Reagan - Star Wars and Iran-Contra
5. Harding - corruption
Dishonorable mention: Bush 41, Nixon, LBJ

Andrew Jackson was considered a great president immediately after he left office.
And Truman was considered a utter failure when he left office.

History and new information changes prospective. Best to give time for the issues and information to come to the surface.

It changes with the whims of people.

For example, I hear people talking about McCarthy being a great American!

The obvious question would be what did he do that was good and did he really do it?....

Well, people didn't like the extermination of two whole cities too much, now, did they?

So how does the actions of a declared war between two nations compare?

Worst 5 (in the order they come to mind)
1. Jackson - Trail of Tears


I always find this amusing as it was his successor that conducted the Cherokee expulsion.

So how does the actions of a declared war between two nations compare?

Because in the Middle East, we aren't destroying cities full of civilians. I'd say it's a fair comparison to downplay urban combat by saying that it isn't genocide, yeah?

I always find this amusing as it was his successor that conducted the Cherokee expulsion.

You are not going to suggest the Aboriginals were abused for generations now are you?

Because in the Middle East, we aren't destroying cities full of civilians. I'd say it's a fair comparison to downplay urban combat by saying that it isn't genocide, yeah?

Again declared war.

You might also want to look up what genocide means.

Again declared war.

You might also want to look up what genocide means.

Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group.

Okay, so, let me make this clear for you: more than 200,000 Japanese people were killed just for being Japanese people (we didn't bomb Berlin to convince Japan to surrender). This, in my book, is a deliberate and systematic destruction. It wasn't an accident, and a nuclear weapon -- 2 nuclear weapons, in fact -- is pretty damned systematic.

In the Middle East, we aren't running around killing everything Middle Eastern that has a face. If that were our goal, then that area would be barren right now. So, I am pretty sure I am applying the word correctly, here, since it doesn't have to mean the extermination of an entire race (popular belief notwithstanding).

You are not going to suggest the Aboriginals were abused for generations now are you?

Just saying that Historians seemed to have pinned Jackson for a crime that was committed after he left office.

Most government policies towards the aboriginals were bad.......

Of course.

The best president of the US has been and will probably be for some time the ninth for the simple reason that he died a month in. I rank the next four on how quickly they died in office. Nixon gets an honorable mention for resigning.

Amen. While I do like some of Jackson's actions (namely killing the national bank), nothing excuses his policy toward the Native Americans.

Which he is largely blamed for the actions of his successor. The removals he saw were mild, conducted in proper season for travel and were somewhat voluntary.

John Adams (the father) and Truman are my personal favorites - although the latter would most likely be mocked and vilified as an i'norant country bumpkin by today's insufferably patrician media.

Carter and Clinton are my personal choices for worst. The former, for being the absolute worst person at the worst possible time, though he gets bonus points for being able to stand up straight despite clearly lacking a spine to support him. The latter, for putting the country through one of the most embarrassing and ridiculous episodes ever in the political history of any country. My God, at least Bush spared us the constant mental picture of his shriveled old privates being orally stimulated by fat interns.

John Adams (the father) and Truman are my personal favorites - although the latter would most likely be mocked and vilified as an i'norant country bumpkin by today's insufferably patrician media.


So Truman was the late 1940's and early 1950's Bush ?

John Adams (the father) and Truman are my personal favorites - although the latter would most likely be mocked and vilified as an i'norant country bumpkin by today's insufferably patrician media.

I would have liked Truman, but he had the incendiaries and the two a-bombs dropped on Japan. Instant asshole status.


Carter and Clinton are my personal choices for worst. The former, for being the absolute worst person at the worst possible time, though he gets bonus points for being able to stand up straight despite clearly lacking a spine to support him. The latter, for putting the country through one of the most embarrassing and ridiculous episodes ever in the political history of any country. My God, at least Bush spared us the constant mental picture of his shriveled old privates being orally stimulated by fat interns.

I find it hard to believe you rank a President's sex life as an issue more important than the economy or thousands of deaths.

I find it hard to believe you rank a President's sex life as an issue more important than the economy or thousands of deaths.

That post was either satire or (my political views beside the point) the most epic fail of this thread (even if Clinton's not my hero, I'm not going to judge him on a blowjob).

It is really dangerous to decide on immediately on weather a president is good or bad. Best to wait at least 16 years and let historians pick apart his decisions and consequences.Not necessarily. Historians tend to view activist Presidents positively, regardless of what their actual policies were.

Which he is largely blamed for the actions of his successor. The removals he saw were mild, conducted in proper season for travel and were somewhat voluntary.While it is true that Van Buren oversaw the Trail of Tears, the treaty that the Trail of Tears resulted from was done under Jackson's watch, and with his explicit support, given his policies towards native Americans.

While it is true that Van Buren oversaw the Trail of Tears, the treaty that the Trail of Tears resulted from was done under Jackson's watch, and with his explicit support, given his policies towards native Americans.

yes, but it was very similar with treaties conducted with other tribes. the differences was he didn't force march them to Oklahoma in the dead of winter and he tended to allow those willing to live under state laws(as whites) to claim a family plot and remain.

Van Buren Sent the army and forced marched them in winter. Which is what made the trail of tears so infamous.

yes, but it was very similar with treaties conducted with other tribes. the differences was he didn't force march them to Oklahoma in the dead of winter and he tended to allow those willing to live under state laws(as whites) to claim a family plot and remain.

Van Buren Sent the army and forced marched them in winter. Which is what made the trail of tears so infamous.This isn't much different than the Choctaw Trail of Tears (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choctaw_Trail_of_Tears), and essentially keeps within the same vein and spirit that that did.

The latter, for putting the country through one of the most embarrassing and ridiculous episodes ever in the political history of any country. My God, at least Bush spared us the constant mental picture of his shriveled old privates being orally stimulated by fat interns.

I'd rather have a president like about getting a blow job than lie to get us into war.

Kosovo was just a puny, little war compared to idiot shrubya's wars.

Shooting a baby in the face is just a puny little thing compared to burning down the street.

Shooting a baby in the face is just a puny little thing compared to burning down the street.

The title says: "best/least bad".

The title says: "best/least bad".

And?

News flash: The Confederacy fired first at Fort Sumter.

News Flash...no one was killed except for a cannon loader in the union fort...your buddy Lincoln decided that war was easier than talks...:rolleyes:

News Flash...no one was killed except for a cannon loader in the union fort...your buddy Lincoln decided that war was easier than talks...:rolleyes:

The south attacked and captured a Federal Fort filled with federal fucking troops.

Of COURSE that was met with war.

Like I said, the traditional southern arguement for why Lincoln is teh ebil is one of the most pathetic arguements in the history of arguing.

By the way, arent you the one whose solution to the piracy problem in Somalia has been 'nukes nukes nukes lulz"?


Yes, you are.

By the way, arent you the one whose solution to the piracy problem in Somalia has been 'nukes nukes nukes lulz"?


Yes, you are.

We should really be talking with the pirates....

This isn't much different than the Choctaw Trail of Tears (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choctaw_Trail_of_Tears), and essentially keeps within the same vein and spirit that that did.

Not really. The Choctaw were moved in 3 waves between 1831 and 1836. 1/3 remained in Mississippi and the deaths were attributed mostly to a Cholera epidemic.

the Cherokee had twice a large of a number and they were forced to move in half the time, and the deaths were largely attributed to frost bite and hunger.

Lincoln was a National traitor...war for what?? imposing the will of a select few through military action?? Totally opposite of the reasons for the Revolution. he was disgrace. And when things didn't go the way he wanted, he brought slavery into the mix, yet allowed 3 'Northern' states to keep and use slaves for fear of Washington being surrounded by 'Southern' states.

I agree with you.

News flash: The Confederacy fired first at Fort Sumter.

The Southern states left the Union; the Federal forces were hostile troops in their land.

When Lincoln decided to go to war to "preserve the Union," he used the Articles of Confederation as back up. The Articles state that the Union was a "perpetual league of friendship."

First of all, why was Lincoln reading the Articles to decide what to do?! He should have been reading the Constitution. The Constitution says that the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed, and the Declaration of Independence says that "it is the right of the people to abolish [that government which is destructive of their rights], and to institute a new government . . ." Obviously, our founding fathers new that wars and divisions would come, and they provided for them. Thomas Jefferson believed that a revolution was needed every twenty years to keep government small and out of the way of the people. Many of the founding fathers decided to give the new Constitution a chance to work; knowing that if it didn't, they could always resort to secession.

Secondly, the idea of "perpetual friendship" among nations is as ridiculous as "outlawing" war. How do you enforce such a thing except by going to war? There is no other way. The Civil War proved that.

By the way, arent you the one whose solution to the piracy problem in Somalia has been 'nukes nukes nukes lulz"?

Solution: SEAL Team snipers

We should really be talking with the pirates....

Even Obama is smarter than you.

I agree with you.

And I doubt Jesus is ever wrong.

Shooting a baby in the face is just a puny little thing compared to burning down the street.
I was just saying what shrub did was worse than what slick willy did. Neither was perfect.

And I doubt Jesus is ever wrong.
Jesus can't lie. He's God and God can't lie. At least, that's what I believe. Believe what you want. You will face the truth when you are dead.

Jesus can't lie. He's God and God can't lie. At least, that's what I believe. Believe what you want. You will face the truth when you are dead.

Of course he can lie. He's omnipotent.

Of course he can lie. He's omnipotent.

You forgot to mention omnipresent too.:D

The Southern states left the Union; the Federal forces were hostile troops in their land.
Considering he believed you cannot succeed, they werent on their land, actually.
When Lincoln decided to go to war to "preserve the Union," he used the Articles of Confederation as back up.
What a fucking lie. At this point, Im going to pretty much stop reading whatever you have to say, except...
Even Obama is smarter than you.
He was a Harvard Law professor. He's smarter then 99% of America.

News Flash...no one was killed except for a cannon loader in the union fort...your buddy Lincoln decided that war was easier than talks...:rolleyes:

Hmmm The Federal situation at the time. Limited supplies. Cannons are a joke. Fort is from the war of 1812 and really offered no credible threat.

It was rather stupid to give Lincoln the excuse for war.

Considering he believed you cannot succeed, they werent on their land, actually.

They did secede.

What a fucking lie.

Nine Reasons Why I Swear

1. It pleases mother so much.

2. It is a fine mark of manliness.

3. It proves I have self control.

4. It indicates how clearly my mind operates.

5. It makes my conversation so pleasing to everybody.

6. It leaves no doubt in anyone's mind as to my good breeding.

7. It impresses people that I have more than ordinary education.

8. It is and unmistakable sign or culture and refinement.

9. It makes me a very desirable personality among women and children and in respectable society.

Favorites: Lincoln, Truman, Jackson, Clinton

Because of their accomplishments, firstly, and then because I just think they're interesting. Kennedy and Jimmy Carter are also pretty neat folks, their presidencies are a bit vacant of progress. Hence, they are not great presidents in my book. Public figures, nice guys with good stories.

Least Favorites: Andrew Johnson, because he wasn't neat and he wasn't a success, Reagan, and the Bushes.

the war was effectively over. Most of the generals either stood down once they heard the news or withdrew to wait and see if another general would show himself to have Lee's brilliance.
Palmetto Ranch happened because the Texans did not have the news of the surrender of Lee.

I was just pointing out that it could be convincingly argued that the war didn't end until May.

In your opinion, which U.S. Presidents were the best (or, if you hate them all, "least bad"), and which were the worst? You can name your least favorite and your favorite, or your top and bottom 5, or your top and bottom 10, whatever. Of course, you can also list your reasons for choosing the individuals you did, but you by no means have to.

This was mostly inspired by this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=590088) (I created this one to avoid further derailment of that topic from its main subject[s], Reagan and Thatcher).

Top 10 (Best to least best)


Abraham Lincoln
George Washington
Franklin D. Roosevelt
Theodore Roosevelt
Harry S. Truman
John F. Kennedy
Thomas Jefferson
Dwight D. Eisenhower
Woodrow Wilson
Ronald Reagan


Bottom 10 (Worst to least worst)


James Buchanan
Andrew Johnson
Franklin Pierce
William Henry Harrison
Warren G. Harding
Millard Fillmore
George W. Bush
John Tyler
Herbert Hoover
Rutherford B. Hayes


They did secede

They were not officially recognized as having done so. As far as the Union was concerned, it was attempted secession and not actual secession.

Even Obama is smarter than you.

Don't flame.

Top 10 (Best to least best)


Abraham Lincoln
George Washington
Franklin D. Roosevelt
Theodore Roosevelt
Harry S. Truman
John F. Kennedy
Thomas Jefferson
Dwight D. Eisenhower
Woodrow Wilson
Ronald Reagan


Bottom 10 (Worst to least worst)


James Buchanan
Andrew Johnson
Franklin Pierce
William Henry Harrison
Warren G. Harding
Millard Fillmore
George W. Bush
John Tyler
Herbert Hoover
Rutherford B. Hayes
These listings are vaguely familiar (http://www.c-span.org/PresidentialSurvey/Overall-Ranking.aspx)...

When Lincoln decided to go to war to "preserve the Union," he used the Articles of Confederation as back up.
No, actually he relied on the Declaration of Independence:
"It is a fallacy to say that the States created the Union. Rather, it was the Union who created the States, for the Colonies did not become States until the Union declared them so, and South Carolina would in no wise have become independent without the aid of Massachusetts. If South Carolina would adjure the Union, then, let her revert to the British Crown, if she thinks that Her Brittanic Majesty would allow her to keep her peculiar institution [the euphemism at that time for 'slavery']."

They did secede.
They said they did. Lincoln said they didnt. Lincoln did not recognize them as a seperate country. Thus, Fort Sumter was still on Federal territory.

1. It pleases mother so much.
At the age of 21, Ive stopped caring if what I do 'pleases my mother'.
2. It is a fine mark of manliness.
Ive never cared much for being 'manly' either.
3. It proves I have self control.
I dont really get how the two relate.
4. It indicates how clearly my mind operates.
Well, Im out debating you, so clearly my mind works ok.
5. It makes my conversation so pleasing to everybody.
Not trying to make this pleasant.
6. It leaves no doubt in anyone's mind as to my good breeding.
What am I? A dog? Good breeding? Seriously?
7. It impresses people that I have more than ordinary education.
I have enough of an educationt to know that the Articles of Confederation played no role in Lincoln's arguement.
8. It is and unmistakable sign or culture and refinement.
Whose trying to be cultured and refined?
9. It makes me a very desirable personality among women and children and in respectable society.
Women, children, and people in general like me, so Id say thats true.

ps- Women swear too. But dont tell anyone. Its a seceret.

He sounds a tad Victorian.

I think being told that I dont have 'good breeding' is about the funniest thing Ive ever heard on NSG.

I think being told that I dont have 'good breeding' is about the funniest thing Ive ever heard on NSG.

You're missing an apostrophe in I've. If your mother hadn't married the blacksmith from Clacton-on-Barrows this would never have happened.

I think being told that I dont have 'good breeding' is about the funniest thing Ive ever heard on NSG.

What with supporting the seceding, he seems behind the times. Slaves may have lacked "breeding".

What with supporting the seceding, he seems behind the times. Slaves may have lacked "breeding".

They weren't bred? So they just sprang out from the ground?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=breeding+definition&btnG=Search

First result:

Web definitions for breeding

"elegance by virtue of fineness of manner and expression "

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=breeding+definition&btnG=Search

First result:

From the online dictionary, second result:

1. One's line of descent; ancestry: a person of noble breeding.
2. Training in the proper forms of social and personal conduct.
3. Production of offspring or young.
4. The propagation of animals or plants.

You're missing an apostrophe in I've. If your mother hadn't married the blacksmith from Clacton-on-Barrows this would never have happened.

Nice.;)

From the online dictionary, second result:

Great.

http://www.google.com/search?btnG=1&q=gay+definition

Oh, hey, multiple meanings, one of which being antiquated but very proper language.

Great.

http://www.google.com/search?btnG=1&q=gay+definition

Oh, hey, multiple meanings, one of which being antiquated but very proper language.

And if you will notice, I gave all four the dictionary offered.

Here is the same dictionary defining gay:

adj. gay·er, gay·est
1. Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.
2. Showing or characterized by cheerfulness and lighthearted excitement; merry.
3. Bright or lively, especially in color: a gay, sunny room.
4. Given to social pleasures.
5. Dissolute; licentious.
n.
1. A person whose sexual orientation is to persons of the same sex.
2. A man whose sexual orientation is to men: an alliance of gays and lesbians.

And if you will notice, I gave all four the dictionary offered.

Here is the same dictionary defining gay:

Okay, so if I said, "Today, the ballroom is gay and sunny," are you going to mock me for using a word that means 'homosexual'? That's the problem, here -- because the poster used the word 'breeding', you attacked him for word choice, even though it was correct and had nothing to do with the control of propagation.

Okay, so if I said, "Today, the ballroom is gay and sunny," are you going to mock me for using a word that means 'homosexual'? That's the problem, here -- because the poster used the word 'breeding', you attacked him for word choice, even though it was correct and had nothing to do with the control of propagation.

I knew exactly what the poster meant. I just responded like I did to highlight the silliness of his comment.

That, and the term 'breeding' in the context he used it hasnt been used outside of aristocratic circles for a long time, so seeing it pop up was fuckin' funny.

Okay, so if I said, "Today, the ballroom is gay and sunny," are you going to mock me for using a word that means 'homosexual'? That's the problem, here -- because the poster used the word 'breeding', you attacked him for word choice, even though it was correct and had nothing to do with the control of propagation.

Your use fits the third definition.

Ive never cared much for being 'manly'.

Sigged :p

Sigged :p

Well, when compared with the other quote from me in your sig, that one is going to come back and haunt me.:p

These listings are vaguely familiar (http://www.c-span.org/PresidentialSurvey/Overall-Ranking.aspx)...

Indeed. I really didn't feel like reading the biographies of 42 different men (Obama doesn't count, what with being so new in office) and since C-span is so overwhelmingly boring, I can only imagine they're not the type to turn fact into entertainment.

Lazy? Why yes. Yes it is.

Well, when compared with the other quote from me in your sig, that one is going to come back and haunt me.:p

Big part of the reason why I did it... :D
:fluffle:

My top 5 (from best best to least):
1.Theodore Roosevelt
2.Thomas Jefferson
3.Abraham Lincoln
4.Franklin Roosevelt
5.Bill Clinton

My bottom 5 (from worst to least):
1.Andrew Jackson
2.George Walker Bush
3.Jimmy Carter
4.John Quincy Adams
5.Ronald Reagan

The south attacked and captured a Federal Fort filled with federal fucking troops.

Of COURSE that was met with war.

Like I said, the traditional southern arguement for why Lincoln is teh ebil is one of the most pathetic arguements in the history of arguing.

By the way, arent you the one whose solution to the piracy problem in Somalia has been 'nukes nukes nukes lulz"?


Yes, you are.

Hey, they gave them a chance to leave. A federal reservation is still on state land. If Lincoln didn't want war, he would not have instructed the feds to abandon one fort to reinforce another and send more troops there too?? Do you welcome armed peoples that have been instructed to quell a succession by force with open arms? No, you do it with a clenched fist and any weapon you can find. :rolleyes:

Remember, Lincoln was the first to call for each state to raise 3 brigades to fight the confederacy/succession states. We tried to use the 'show of force' approach, didn't work too good...." 'cause it ain't no fun when the rabbits got guns!"

Lincoln started the Civil War?

This must be that bizarro-history the neocons have been advocating.

Lincoln started the Civil War?

This must be that bizarro-history the neocons have been advocating.

I honestly dont get the hate for Lincoln, of course he had to fight the Civil War, and defend the damned fort, you think Obama's just going to let Texas go away? lol...

Its Andrew Johnson who deserves our scorn, lol...

Don't flame.
If you think that's flaming, tell the mods.

Indeed. I really didn't feel like reading the biographies of 42 different men (Obama doesn't count, what with being so new in office) and since C-span is so overwhelmingly boring, I can only imagine they're not the type to turn fact into entertainment.

Lazy? Why yes. Yes it is.
I think you mean 43 because that's how many previous presidents there were.

I think you mean 43 because that's how many previous presidents there were.

Nope. Grover Cleveland served two non-consecutive terms as 22nd and 24th presidents.

The worst - Carter

The best - Not sure, i'll have to think about it.

How to measure the best and the worst? It depends on how well they handled the events of their time. It can be argued that those Presidents who served at least two terms must be doing something right, which means I can't objectively call President Clinton "the worst". Likewise, some one term Presidents have achieved successes in government and public policy after their term in office.

My grasp of history is average, so my distillation of facts may not be complete. My two finalists for "Best" were both preceeded by my two finalists for "Worst". In the end, I gave the benefit of doubt to our nation's founding fathers.

Best: Thomas Jefferson

Worst: James Earl Carter

Hmmm

Why don't people add why they are best and worst?

I am curious to people's reasons.....

Hmmm

Why don't people add why they are best and worst?

I am curious to people's reasons.....

Of the two term Presidents, both of them true patriots, I chose Jefferson over Reagan partly because of the lack of instant communication across the nation during Jefferson's time.

Of the one term Presidents, I rated Carter worse than John Adams because I lived through that terrible Administration and because when I listen to Carter today I say to myself, "This guy really doesn't have a clue".

Hmmm

Why don't people add why they are best and worst?

I am curious to people's reasons.....

Liked:

Woodrow Wilson: Because he worked hard at his job, and made a temendous effort to cut spending.

Richard Nixon: Abolished the draft, cut military spending, increased benefits spending, created the EPA, ended the Vietnam War, opened the door to China, increased civil rights, supported Affirmative Action, signed SALT I.

Bill Clinton: A massive cut in military spending, and an improvement of the economy.


Disliked:

Harry Truman: He killed a couple of hundred thousand non-combatants.

LBJ: Fucking "escalation", and a botched attempt at welfare.

Ronald Reagan: Tripling the deficit while cutting spending in important areas.

Andrew Jackson: Promoter of slavery, and all-around shithead to Davy Crockett.

Liked:

Woodrow Wilson: Because he worked hard at his job, and made a temendous effort to cut spending.


I would like to note that Wilson was a racist pig who, through his Interventionism in Europe, managed to set the stage for WW2 and set us up for the Great Depression.

I would like to note that Wilson was a racist pig who, through his Interventionism in Europe, managed to set the stage for WW2 and set us up for the Great Depression.

I would like to note that most Presidents were racists pigs.

How did American intervention in Europe set the stage for WW2? And how did it bring-about the Great Depression, if WW2 saw an economic boom after its end?

Why is Wilson not on everyone's worst list? I mean seriously, his administration's domestic repression of dissidents, imperialist war and otherwise complete boning of the country dwarfed just about any other president's heinous actions. He made Bush look like a nice 4th of July picnic.

I would like to note that most Presidents were racists pigs.

:wink:

How did American intervention in Europe set the stage for WW2? And how did it bring-about the Great Depression, if WW2 saw an economic boom after its end?
In 1917, the sides were still more or less even, to the point where a harsh treaty such as Versailles would have not have been thrust upon the Germans, setting the stage for WW2. Also, without America's intervention, arguably, Europe would still have some semblance of economic power and infrastructure, or at least Germany. It wouldn't have hastened and increased the scope of the Dust Bowl problem by the same scale that it did, the Great Depression would merely be the Depression of the thirties, another one in a long roller coaster, that never went too high nor too low, but still was painful and joyous at times.

Why is Wilson not on everyone's worst list? I mean seriously, his administration's domestic repression of dissidents, imperialist war and otherwise complete boning of the country dwarfed just about any other president's heinous actions. He made Bush look like a nice 4th of July picnic.

To be fair, Andrew Jackson pursued Genocide, and I was only putting down one on my 'Worst' list.

FDR
Theodore Roosevelt
Abraham Lincoln
Bill Clinton

To be fair, Andrew Jackson pursued Genocide, and I was only putting down one on my 'Worst' list.

Very true. You can't spell "genocide" without "NO!"

Liked:

Woodrow Wilson: Because he worked hard at his job, and made a temendous effort to cut spending.

Eugenics advocate

Richard Nixon: Abolished the draft, cut military spending, increased benefits spending, created the EPA, ended the Vietnam War, opened the door to China, increased civil rights, supported Affirmative Action, signed SALT I.

Abolishing the draft was good, cut millitary spending; sometimes good, opening door to China bad, we wouldn't be in some much debt if he hadn't done that.

Bill Clinton: A massive cut in military spending, and an improvement of the economy.

Millitary spending cut was idoitic. It left the military ill prepared to fight in Afganistan, and Iraq and the smaller conflicts in the Clinton years.


Disliked:

Harry Truman: He killed a couple of hundred thousand non-combatants.

Yes, they were non combatants, but invasion would have left Japan nonexistant because they never would have stopped fighting even if they had to resort to sticks and rocks to the last man, women and child. Look at the Battle of Saipan. The Japanese had their people so brainwashed into believing that we were evil devils that around 5,000 civilians threw themselves and their children off of a cliff. The 1st Marine Division was expected to take 80% casulties in the first 24 hours. And personaly, if Truman didn't drop the bomb, I wouldn't exist. My whole exist is because of the A-bomb. My Mom's dad was in a Marine Raiders Battalion in the Pacific, he was one of the "lucky" ones. He fought for the entire war. His unit atleast for the first part of the war, was deployed by submarine and raided Japanese outposts like in the Gilbert Islands Raid. If we had invaded Japan, there is a very good chance I wouldn't be alive.

LBJ: Fucking "escalation", and a botched attempt at welfare.

I don't like LBJ either.

Ronald Reagan: Tripling the deficit while cutting spending in important areas.

His spending put the Soviets into a downward spiral in an atempt to outspend us. He ended the spectre of nuclear anilhlation that had hung over 3 Generations.

Andrew Jackson: Promoter of slavery, and all-around shithead to Davy Crockett.

The Promoter of slavery thing is iffy, I understand why, and slavery is horrific, but it was a different time in a very different culture.

I can smell a southerner's arguement against Lincoln from a mile away.

Usually because of the amount of history it requires one to ignore and the amount of disbelief one must suspend in order for said arguement to not be laughable.

I'm not a huge fan of Lincoln. Sure, the end result was good, but I didn't care for his total disregard for the American Constitution, and suspension of Habeus Corpus.

I also have a grudge (unrightfully) against Lincoln because so many people adore him without really knowing why. Sure, he single-handedly ended slavery, which is the one-word answerto why we had the Civil War :rolleyes:. It just seems like no one was aware that he was horribly unpopular, and didn't think the Constitution was very applicable. That and he was a racist (though, that is actually kind of a step up from the norm way back then, so it's not like I hold that against him, I just like telling his blind adorants that he indeed was, and having them argue with me just because they presume that he wasn't racist).

The Promoter of slavery thing is iffy, I understand why, and slavery is horrific, but it was a different time in a very different culture.

"Slavery was horrific.... but...."

Seriously?

Reasons:

Least Worst:

FDR - the New Deal, the Wagner Act.
Abraham Lincoln - hastening the end of slavery.
Thomas Jefferson - the Louisiana Purchase
Bill Clinton - don't really like him, but I wanted five to put here.
John Tyler - kinda feel bad for him since nobody like him during his time.

Honorable mention: Martin Van Buren - pursued peace; refused to help the Mormons.

Worst:

Ronald Reagan - presidency an unmitigated atrocity.
GWB - mostly atrocious, but did give a lot of foreign aid to Africa to fight AIDS.
Andrew Jackson - policies towards native Americans.
James Polk -Mexican-American War; pro-slavery.
Herbert Hoover - stock market fall; go boom.

(Dis)Honorable mention: Dwight Eisenhower - Coups in Iran and Nicaragua; 'Eisenhower Doctrine', however he was pro-civil rights.

Honorable mention: Martin Van Buren - pursued peace; refused to help the Mormons.

Do you consider his refusing to help the Mormons a good thing?

Don't care, it ain't my country they fuck up.

Do you consider his refusing to help the Mormons a good thing?

The Mormons were (and still are to a lesser extent) regarded as a weird bunch, although at that time "weird" was grounds for taking up arms against them (the Missouri and Illinois Mormon Wars). If Washington had helped them, they'd have had a full-scale revolution on their hands. The economy was already in the toilet after Jackson killed the Bank of the United States and had no replacement for it, so a revolution would only have made it worse. In the short run, probably not good for the Mormons, but in the long run, probably good for America.

Nope. Grover Cleveland served two non-consecutive terms as 22nd and 24th presidents.
ok. Guess I have seen too much Bush 41 and Bush 43. Also, seen and heard too much 44about the current Mr. President.

:wink:

In 1917, the sides were still more or less even, to the point where a harsh treaty such as Versailles would have not have been thrust upon the Germans, setting the stage for WW2.And so Germany, still under the imperialistic/imilitaristic rule of the Kaiser, would probably have been able to hold onto [at least] a large part of the territories that it extorted from Bolshevik Russia (in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Brest-Litovsk), March 1918) as the price of peace on that front: Somehow I can't see that as a suitable foundation for long-term peace, either...

The Mormons were (and still are to a lesser extent) regarded as a weird bunch, although at that time "weird" was grounds for taking up arms against them (the Missouri and Illinois Mormon Wars). If Washington had helped them, they'd have had a full-scale revolution on their hands. The economy was already in the toilet after Jackson killed the Bank of the United States and had no replacement for it, so a revolution would only have made it worse. In the short run, probably not good for the Mormons, but in the long run, probably good for America.

Couldn't the same have been said for pro-abolitionists? Of course, the pro-abolitionist stance of Mormons contributed to the hostility they were met with in Missouri. What if Lincoln had agreed to the secession of the Southern states to avoid conflict?

In 1917, the sides were still more or less even, to the point where a harsh treaty such as Versailles would have not have been thrust upon the Germans, setting the stage for WW2. Also, without America's intervention, arguably, Europe would still have some semblance of economic power and infrastructure, or at least Germany. It wouldn't have hastened and increased the scope of the Dust Bowl problem by the same scale that it did, the Great Depression would merely be the Depression of the thirties, another one in a long roller coaster, that never went too high nor too low, but still was painful and joyous at times.

I shall look into it, and alter my opinion accordingly.

But I do not think the Germans lost, badly; if America had not intervened (not arguing for Intervention as a policy, just debating its effects), then the war would have lasted much longer and Germany might have won--which might have been good or bad, depending how you see it.

How the heck did WWI hasten the Dust Bowel problem in America?

Eugenics advocate

To be honest, I really do not care about Presidents' personal feelings, so long they do not implement them.



Abolishing the draft was good, cut military spending; sometimes good, opening door to China bad, we wouldn't be in some much debt if he hadn't done that.

Since Nixon largely created a surplus throughout his terms, I am going to blame succeeding Presidents--like Reagan and Bush--for borrowing so much. The debt was caused by Presidents who raised military spending while cutting taxes.

Millitary spending cut was idoitic. It left the military ill prepared to fight in Afganistan, and Iraq and the smaller conflicts in the Clinton years.

We did not need to invade Iraq nor Afghanistan; but supposing we did, I would hope we would do it without spending over half of our discretionary budget on it.




Yes, they were non combatants, but invasion would have left Japan nonexistant because they never would have stopped fighting even if they had to resort to sticks and rocks to the last man, women and child. Look at the Battle of Saipan. The Japanese had their people so brainwashed into believing that we were evil devils that around 5,000 civilians threw themselves and their children off of a cliff. The 1st Marine Division was expected to take 80% casulties in the first 24 hours. And personaly, if Truman didn't drop the bomb, I wouldn't exist. My whole exist is because of the A-bomb. My Mom's dad was in a Marine Raiders Battalion in the Pacific, he was one of the "lucky" ones. He fought for the entire war. His unit atleast for the first part of the war, was deployed by submarine and raided Japanese outposts like in the Gilbert Islands Raid. If we had invaded Japan, there is a very good chance I wouldn't be alive.

I think that if the "Emperor" was willing to surrender after the bombs, he would be willing to surrender early in the invasion. The generals and soldiers were fanatics, the "Emperor" was coming close to surrender.

If we had not dropped the bombs and the of shitload incendiaries, then a helluva lot of Japanese would still be alive.

I don't like LBJ either.

Dip.


His spending put the Soviets into a downward spiral in an atempt to outspend us. He ended the spectre of nuclear anilhlation that had hung over 3 Generations.

According to Nixon, the Cold War could have ended without Reagan's abundant spending, it just would have taken much longer. I think I would prefer the cheaper method.

Why do you excuse Reagan for tripling the debt, and then blame surplus-creating Nixon for it?

The Promoter of slavery thing is iffy, I understand why, and slavery is horrific, but it was a different time in a very different culture.

To be a good President one has to be beyond his time, certainly not fighting for it.

I shall look into it, and alter my opinion accordingly.

But I do not think the Germans lost, badly; if America had not intervened (not arguing for Intervention as a policy, just debating its effects), then the war would have lasted much longer and Germany might have won--which might have been good or bad, depending how you see it.

How the heck did WWI hasten the Dust Bowel problem in America?

Quite simply, it goes back to the problem with the increased destruction to Europe's economy. With the farmers in America exporting more crops to Europe, it encouraged them to grow more, and to hell with the consequences. Their farming practices were already crap, the surge from WW1 really hastened it all.

The war most likely would have lasted a bit longer, true, but at the same time, it would have ended up as a mild victory at best, for whichever side won, thus putting a bit of a stopper on the wave of Fascism and internal unrest that followed.

Quite simply, it goes back to the problem with the increased destruction to Europe's economy. With the farmers in America exporting more crops to Europe, it encouraged them to grow more, and to hell with the consequences. Their farming practices were already crap, the surge from WW1 really hastened it all.

How did America's involvement in WWI cause them to export more crops?

The war most likely would have lasted a bit longer, true, but at the same time, it would have ended up as a mild victory at best, for whichever side won, thus putting a bit of a stopper on the wave of Fascism and internal unrest that followed.

Not sure; Germany surrendered on a near-talemate, and really sucked it up. If America was not there, Germany would not have surrendered, and the war could have dragged-on much longer, probably with an eventual German victory that would demand everything but the kitchen sink as compenstaion, along with creating a German empire in Europe, which could later end-up in an expensive Cold War with America.

How the heck did WWI hasten the Dust Bowel problem in America?Well, following WWI, there was a worldwide influenza epidemic. One of the symptoms of influenza is diarrhea. Diarrhea dehydrates the person with it, so at some point they would have diarrhea, but no liquids in their system. So it would be dustlike.

I would like to note that Wilson was a racist pig who, through his Interventionism in Europe, managed to set the stage for WW2 and set us up for the Great Depression.

I'd actually say that the Versailles Treaty had more to do with setting the stage for WWII, which the U.S. was not heavily involved in the creating of. In fact, one might argue that had the U.S. actually joined Wilson's League of Nations things could possibly have turned out differently.

But probably not, since France was so adamant about vengefully beating the shit out of Germany.

How did America's involvement in WWI cause them to export more crops?

Destroyed economy, infrastructure, disillusionment, movement to the cities, lack of crops in Europe, et cetera...

Not sure; Germany surrendered on a near-talemate, and really sucked it up. If America was not there, Germany would not have surrendered, and the war could have dragged-on much longer, probably with an eventual German victory that would demand everything but the kitchen sink as compenstaion, along with creating a German empire in Europe, which could later end-up in an expensive Cold War with America.
Oh! Oh! We're doing alternate history! I call the New Roman Empire!:p

I kid. I don't disagree with that too much, except for Germany demanding everything. I see Germany demanding an incredible amount, if not taking almost all of, France, with some heavy concessions on Russia. However, Britain still had a large amount of military power, and both sides would be battered and not in any kind of shape to start fighting again for another few years. And in that time, it would just be another local war, another fight in Europe, one in the endless, meaningless power struggles that plagued Europe for the past few thousand years. The next war would not be a World-Enveloping one against Fascism, but a local power struggle between constantly dueling Nations.
I'd actually say that the Versailles Treaty had more to do with setting the stage for WWII, which the U.S. was not heavily involved in the creating of. In fact, one might argue that had the U.S. actually joined Wilson's League of Nations things could possibly have turned out differently.

Yes! Great idea, we could have a meaningless, helpless international body BEFORE the UN! Brilliant!

But, since the US joined up in WW1, it set the stage for Germany's defeat, at least on a larger level. Without it, Germany MAY still have been defeated, but the concessions made in Versailles would not have been as great, if not almost nonexistent.

-snip-


Not sure; Germany surrendered on a near-talemate, and really sucked it up. If America was not there, Germany would not have surrendered, and the war could have dragged-on much longer, probably with an eventual German victory that would demand everything but the kitchen sink as compenstaion, along with creating a German empire in Europe, which could later end-up in an expensive Cold War with America.
I don't think so. The Entente had in the end, before the US forces arrived, more manpower and was by then more advanced technology-wise. Their airplanes were more numerous and weren't so bad as they used to be against the Germans. Germany also didn't use tanks a lot. The Entente had also caught up with the superios German doctrine.

The last German offensive were halted before US forces could be put into action and put them in a weak position.

I'd actually say that the Versailles Treaty had more to do with setting the stage for WWII, which the U.S. was not heavily involved in the creating of. In fact, one might argue that had the U.S. actually joined Wilson's League of Nations things could possibly have turned out differently.

But probably not, since France was so adamant about vengefully beating the shit out of Germany.
The Versailles Treaty was a collaboration of France, Great Britain and the USA. France wanted to remove the danger of Germany for Europe, and itself, by crippling the country, while the USA wanted to do the same by threating the defeated nation not to harshly.

It resulted in a compromise that neither crippled Germany and still left them displeased.

"This is not Peace. It is an Armistice for twenty years."
Ferdinand Foch

Destroyed economy, infrastructure, disillusionment, movement to the cities, lack of crops in Europe, et cetera...

Would that not have happened anyway?

Oh! Oh! We're doing alternate history! I call the New Roman Empire!:p

And I call the New Holy Roman Empire.

I kid. I don't disagree with that too much, except for Germany demanding everything. I see Germany demanding an incredible amount, if not taking almost all of, France, with some heavy concessions on Russia. However, Britain still had a large amount of military power, and both sides would be battered and not in any kind of shape to start fighting again for another few years. And in that time, it would just be another local war, another fight in Europe, one in the endless, meaningless power struggles that plagued Europe for the past few thousand years. The next war would not be a World-Enveloping one against Fascism, but a local power struggle between constantly dueling Nations.

Europe would still have been utterly cocked-up, and France would hold the same grudge against Germany that Germany did against France; fascism could easily rise in the defeated enemies of Germany.

Anyway, with modern technology, those duels would cripple Europe more than America ever did. And by the time we got to FDR, he might well want to be involved, so America would end-up in constant global struggles over colonies, with Germany being the main opponent, and nations constantly hopping alliances.

I suppose the main question is: Did America's involvement in WWI do as much good as harm?

If we never fought, the world would enter into an age of super-imperialism.

Would that not have happened anyway?

To a Lesser extent, plus increased awareness about the situation over in Europe.

And I call the New Holy Roman Empire.

:(



Europe would still have been utterly cocked-up, and France would hold the same grudge against Germany that Germany did against France; fascism could easily rise in the defeated enemies of Germany.

Anyway, with modern technology, those duels would cripple Europe more than America ever did. And by the time we got to FDR, he might well want to be involved, so America would end-up in constant global struggles over colonies, with Germany being the main opponent, and nations constantly hopping alliances.

I suppose the main question is: Did America's involvement in WWI do as much good as harm?

If we never fought, the world would enter into an age of super-imperialism.
All speculation. We have no idea what really would have happened, I suppose, which essentially makes all of this useless.

To a Lesser extent, plus increased awareness about the situation over in Europe.

Should Willie be blamed for it?

All speculation. We have no idea what really would have happened, I suppose, which essentially makes all of this useless.

I suppose; though you seemed fairly certain our entry into WWI had catastrophic effects. Such a complex subject--I shall study it for some time in order to properly evaluate Wilson.

Should Willie be blamed for it?

Yes.:)

I suppose; though you seemed fairly certain our entry into WWI had catastrophic effects. Such a complex subject--I shall study it for some time in order to properly evaluate Wilson.
It's more of a magnification, increasing the effects of what was going to come anyway.

Yes.:)

It seems like the economic problems had little to do with America's involvement....

It's more of a magnification, increasing the effects of what was going to come anyway.

Like I said, I will look into it.

Wilson lowered tariffs, abolished child labor, and set-up laws that prevented unfair business practices--though I concede that he started that whole screwed-up notion of: "America: World Police".

Yes! Great idea, we could have a meaningless, helpless international body BEFORE the UN! Brilliant!
Hindsight is a wonderful thing isn't it.

But, since the US joined up in WW1, it set the stage for Germany's defeat, at least on a larger level. Without it, Germany MAY still have been defeated, but the concessions made in Versailles would not have been as great, if not almost nonexistent.

Germany had lost after the Schlieffen Plan failed. The rest was just dicking around in the mud until a ceasefire. The US didn't do much after arriving so late to the game.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing isn't it.



Germany had lost after the Schlieffen Plan failed. The rest was just dicking around in the mud until a ceasefire. The US didn't do much after arriving so late to the game.

All those Germans coming back from Russia say otherwise......:p

Hindsight is a wonderful thing isn't it.

Germany had lost after the Schlieffen Plan failed. The rest was just dicking around in the mud until a ceasefire. The US didn't do much after arriving so late to the game.

Eh? Then what was the bit with all the troops from Russia? Take the US troops out of the picture. Result of WWI would have probably been different.

Best:
1. Reagan
2. Washington
3. Lincoln

Worst:
1. Harding
2. Clinton
3. Roosevelt

Best:
1. Reagan
2. Washington
3. Lincoln

Worst:
1. Harding
2. Clinton
3. Roosevelt

Roosevelt? What about Johnson?

I think that if the "Emperor" was willing to surrender after the bombs, he would be willing to surrender early in the invasion. The generals and soldiers were fanatics, the "Emperor" was coming close to surrender.

If we had not dropped the bombs and the of shitload incendiaries, then a helluva lot of Japanese would still be alive.



However it was the dropping of the incendiaries and that destruction that they caused that created a backbone in Hirohito that caused him to finally plan to throw the militarists out of power. It is just unfortunate that, due to the political structure of the Meiji Constitution, it would take so long for Hirohito to outmaneuver the militarists. Thankfully he was able to do it after the A-bombs since the militarists weren't all that impressed by them partly because of the incendiary campaign.

Honestly, I wouldn't put too much blame on Truman for the incendiaries, I'd much rather heap as much of it on Lemay's corpse as I can. One that I hope is rotting somewhere nasty.

The Versailles Treaty was a collaboration of France, Great Britain and the USA. France wanted to remove the danger of Germany for Europe, and itself, by crippling the country, while the USA wanted to do the same by threating the defeated nation not to harshly.

No, France wanted revenge. France wanted to beat Germany into a bloody pulp that would never be strong again. Britain wanted something similar, but only insofar as it made the Empire supreme. I can't remember what the US had in mind, and I don't feel like digging out my research paper.

It resulted in a compromise that neither crippled Germany and still left them displeased.

"This is not Peace. It is an Armistice for twenty years."
Ferdinand Foch

That much is true.

Hmmm, I think your getting your cause and effect confused. Even in what you say, the problem was not so much American entry into WW1, which did not by the way destroy German Infrastructure anymore than the war itself was already doing.

The cause was the Treaty of Versailles. If you want to call Wilson a putz for allowing it, feel free, but the punitive terms were spearheaded by the British and the French.

P.S. - Wilson's big thrust in the conference was the League of Nations. Somethn he was not able to sell to a still failry isolationist American Public. But he was no saint. He was pretty much a racist and believed in Eugenics.

Best Presidents:

Washington
Lincoln
Reagan
Clinton

Worst

Polk
Jackson
Hoover
George W.

Best Presidents:

Washington

Why?

Best Presidents:

Clinton


Why?

Why?

Maybe the cut in military spending...though that is not congruent with his love of Reagan.

Interesting... (here goes an attempt from a Canadian point of view)

Best Presidents

Lincoln, for being honest, insightful and exactly what the country needed for unification. His speeches including his inaugural no.2 and Gettysburg are some of the greatest words orated by an American.

Washington, the accuracy of his farewell address gives me goosebumps, at times I would say though he may not have been the most academic among the founding fathers - he was the most insightful (I think Hamilton wrote the address, actually).

Jackson, this guy is just really cool, what can say? He brought to the world, Jacksonian Democracy (POWER TO THE PEOPLE!) and an end to the Virginia Dynasty. Also he was extremely loyal to his country, a strong unifier - and liked to duel (awesome). Also after watching Zeitgeist, I can forgive him for trying to get rid of paper currency (though it brought America into an economic depression). I can't however forgive him for his policies on the natives.

Honourable Mention =

John Q. Adams (he was useless in office, but as "Old Man Eloquence" he was the voice of intellectual reason and the upholder of the constitution in the tense, pre-civil war days)

Calvin Coolidge (funny story - a girl made a bet at a fancy Virginia party, that she could make the president say at least three words. Calvin heard about the bet, and walked over to her. He replied "You lose").

Morgan Freeman (For being Morgan Freeman).

Worst Presidents

William Henry Harrison, Pathetic. Plain and simple. Old Tippecanoe was an experienced war general that no one had ever heard about, the whigs had the smart idea to campaign him as their new candidate, because no one knew anything about him - and 'cause he was ex-military. So naturally, he was voted in as President without any political skills or experience. This bloke had the longest inaugural speech in history - it took over two hours to finish his incoherent ramblings... he then caught a cold because he wasn't wearing a coat (he went to U. of Philadelphia for medicine), and died a few weeks later. Absolutely pathetic.

John Tyler, wow, this guy was Harrison's vice president. So naturally, with Harrison's "untimely" and pathetic death, Tyler became president. That must of been a shock to the whigs, because Tyler wasn't even a whig - he was a democrat who had been put in the running to attract democrat votes (the vice president didn't usually do anything at the time anyway). So Tyler, did the exact opposite of the practices of the party that got him elected. Brilliant.

W, for being such a shitty president that he let poisonous snakes like Dick Cheney mock America's founding principles. Just bloody stupid.

Nixon & LBJ, these guys scare me, in fact they're ten times worse than Bush. These guys didn't believe in helping Americans at all, they were manipulative liars who were behind Vietnam (nuff said) and absolutely destroyed Healthcare in America. The founding fathers would be ashamed to see these dudes as president.

Dishonourable Mention =

Millard Fillmore (for having the silliest name in American History)

Zachary Taylor (for being the second war general that the GOP got into power, without any experience in politics, whatsoever.)

James Buchanan (for being utterly useless in a time of need)

Nixon & LBJ, these guys scare me, in fact they're ten times worse than Bush. These guys didn't believe in helping Americans at all, they were manipulative liars who were behind Vietnam (nuff said) and absolutely destroyed Healthcare in America. The founding fathers would be ashamed to see these dudes as president.

Kennedy started Vietnam; Nixon ended it, and he increased Medicare spending. Please make sure you know your facts before speaking.

I knew Kennedy was the president at the time that America entered Vietnam. (I said Nixon was behind the war, not the one that started it)

And that doesn't change my position on Nixon

Also,

Nixon developed a Medicare plan that allowed health insurance companies to run the place - not exactly something inspiring. The whole point of his plan was that the companies would keep people from getting the help they deserved, essentially making profit off people's suffering - because Nixon was absolutely against anything remotely socialistic.

I knew Kennedy was the president at the time that America entered Vietnam.

Then it is strange that you blame Nixon for it.

And that doesn't change my position on Nixon.

Your position can be what you would damned well please, just make sure you state facts. Kennedy started it, Nixon ended it.

Also,

Nixon developed a Medicare plan that allowed health insurance companies to run the place - not exactly something inspiring. The whole point of his plan was that the companies would keep people from getting the help they deserved - because Nixon was absolutely against anything remotely socialistic.

He also increased government Government Medicare spending.

Under Nixon, direct payments from the federal government to individual American citizens in government benefits (including Social Security and Medicare) rose from 6.3% of the Gross National Product (GNP) to 8.9%. Food aid and public assistance also rose, beginning at $6.6 billion and escalating to $9.1 billion. Defense spending decreased from 9.1% to 5.8% of the GNP. The revenue sharing program pioneered by Nixon delivered $80 billion to individual states and municipalities.[65]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Nixon

He also proposed the excellent FAP, and signed Title X.

I knew Kennedy was the president at the time that America entered Vietnam.

And that doesn't change my position on Nixon.

Also,

Nixon developed a Medicare plan that allowed health insurance companies to run the place - not exactly something inspiring. The whole point of his plan was that the companies would keep people from getting the help they deserved - because Nixon was absolutely against anything remotely socialistic.

Actually we were involved in Viet Nam before JFK. Eisenhower sent the first "advisers"

Best presidents

1. Franklin D. Roosevelt
2. Bill Clinton
3. Theodore Roosevelt

Worst presidents

1. George W. Bush
2. Richard Nixon
3. Ronald Reagan

To be honest I'm pretty sketchy on the 18th and 19th century presidents, so bare that in mind

He also increased government Government Medicare spending.

If he was such a "help the people" buff,

Then whats with this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DacChr5MRo)?

An inspiring quote from Nixon >

"You know I'm not too keen on any of these dahm medical programs" 1971

Mildred Fillmore (for having the silliest name in American History)
Millard, but its still pretty damn silly.

Actually we were involved in Viet Nam before JFK. Eisenhower sent the first "advisers"

True.

If he was such a "help the people" buff,

Then whats with this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DacChr5MRo)?

An inspiring quote from Nixon >

"You know I'm not too keen on any of these dahm medical programs" 1971

I do not give a fuck about what he said; I am talking about what he did. You were wrong about Vietnam--you are wrong about this.

Now please cite a source besides a propaganda film.

*Smacks face on desk from laughing so hard*

Mildred... ha. Good catch :) .

I do not give a fuck about what he said; I am talking about what he did.

Now please cite a source besides a propaganda film.

I mean Watergate wasn't very people-friendly...

*Smacks face on desk from laughing so hard*

Mildred... ha. Good catch :) .

Our first female President, I daresay.

I mean Watergate wasn't very people-friendly...

Which is completely irrelevant to a debate about Nixon's Medicare policy, or his responsibility for Vietnam.

Now please cite a source besides a propaganda film.

LBJ's "Daisy Girl" campaign was propaganda - I would hardly call Michael Moore a producer of propaganda, especially considering its a taped conversation with Nixon, not Michael Moore just shouting stuff out randomly.

And let me remind you, that you cited Wikipedia.

I do not give a fuck about what he said; I am talking about what he did

Well, thats nice. But what if he did what he did without good intentions, but instead to please the rich and powerful - in which case, the truth typically lies in what he said, and unfortunately if you judge Nixon by what he said behind closed doors, he would come at the bottom of the list as far as leaders go.

Actually we were involved in Viet Nam before JFK. Eisenhower sent the first "advisers"

Bah, that proves nothing. Nixon was behind everything, you hear me? Everything!

*Smacks face on desk from laughing so hard*

Mildred... ha. Good catch :) .

I still say Grover Cleveland is a sillier name. Only just, though.

Which is completely irrelevant to a debate about Nixon's Medicare policy, or his responsibility for Vietnam.

Or FAP, or Title X, or Social Security, or food aid and public assistance, or defense spending...

You say why he was people-friendly, I say why he wasn't. Your debate was hardly so narrow.

LBJ's "Daisy Girl" campaign was propaganda - I would hardly call Michael Moore a producer of propaganda, especially considering its a taped conversation with Nixon, not Michael Moore just shouting stuff out randomly.
Nixon's words are of no consequence. I am talking about all the "facts" mentioned in that video. All about as dependable as Rush Limbaugh's "facts".

And let me remind you, that you cited Wikipedia.
Which is not propaganda....


Well, thats nice. But what if he did what he did without good intentions, but instead to please the rich and powerful - in which case, the truth typically lies in what he said, and unfortunately if you judge Nixon by what he said behind closed doors, he would come at the bottom of the list as far as leaders go.

I thought we were talking about his responsibility for Vietnam and his policy toward Medicare. You blamed him for Vietnam; you were wrong. You claimed he ruined Medicare (you supported your claims with Nixon's words, rather than his actions); you were wrong.

I still say Grover Cleveland is a sillier name. Only just, though.

Oooh, I don't know. I just don't know. SO MANY DECISIONS!

Our first female President, I daresay.

Nope, just spell check gone wrong. Besides having a female named Mildred as President would be pretty bad.... but she'd be intimidating that's for sure. :)

Or FAP, or Title X, or Social Security, or food aid and public assistance, or defense spending...

I consider it part of the whole "Medicare/Socialist" thing we are talking about; the military spending was merely part of the paragraph.

You say why he was people-friendly, I say why he wasn't. Your debate was hardly so narrow.

I do not know what you mean by "friendly"; the guy was an asshole. I am just debating his policies.

I do not know what you mean by "friendly"; the guy was an asshole. I am just debating his policies.
By that I mean he did things which were helpful to people. You can talk about Medicare until the cows come home, but Nixon isn't remembered for his aid to the poor.

A lot of people in this thread placed Nixon on their Worst list. Really, though, the only thing Nixon was guilty of was being caught.

By that I mean he did things which were helpful to people. You can talk about Medicare until the cows come home, but Nixon isn't remembered for his aid to the poor.

Yet that is not what I am debating; this fellow said that Nixon ruined aid, and I say he rather helped it.

Nixon's words are of no consequence

Well, it's just I'm having a hard time imagining Lincoln talking trash about black people behind close doors - claiming that the Emancipation Proclamation was all just a scam, or Kennedy secretly talking about how the people "can make their own fucking country to do stuff for themselves", or Washington leading the revolutionary war because he was being paid a lot of money and admitted to it his with poker buddies.

I think every President is remembered for only one thing.

Best:
Taft
Kennedy
Lincoln

Worst:
Bush
Jackson
Jefferson

Well, it's just I'm having a hard time imagining Lincoln talking trash about black people behind close doors

He said they were an "inferior people".

- claiming that the Emancipation Proclamation was all just a scam,

Notice! It only effected Southern States, and was meant as a punishment for rebellion; Lincoln never did jack shit about slavery in the North.

or Kennedy secretly talking about how the people "can make their own fucking country to do stuff for themselves", or Washington leading the revolutionary war because he was being paid a lot of money and admitted to it his with poker buddies.

Washington was one of our few "honorable" Presidents; Kennedy was not idealist--he allowing cheating in his favor in the 1960 election, and he employed wiretaps, just like Nixon did.

But going back to topic: You are basically saying Nixon is a shithead; this is not the original debate.

You claimed that he was responsible for Vietnam and that he ruined Medicare; do you still hold to those words?

I think every President is remembered for only one thing.

Best:
Taft
Kennedy
Lincoln

Worst:
Bush
Jackson
Jefferson

Why does Jefferson make it to the "liked" of so many lists, anyway? Is it the Louisiana Purchase, or just automatic love for being a Founder? You are obviously one of the ones who knows he screwed-up in places.

Notice! It only effected Southern States, and was meant as a punishment for rebellion; Lincoln never did jack shit about slavery in the North.
I don't think it was meant as punishment for rebellion. Considering all Lincoln did to help the South post-Civil War, he doesn't seem the vindictive type. And I'm reasonably certain slavery in the North was non-existant, even without Lincoln's help. Perhaps some in Maryland, and certainly in DC, but otherwise...

responsible for Vietnam and that he ruined Medicare

He was responsible for keeping the troops in way longer than they should of been because of the substantial money some people were making off of it - and he and LBJ sent America's healthcare system down the wrong path.

He was responsible for keeping the troops in way longer than they should of been because of the substantial money some people were making off of it

So if he did it just to make profits for his friends, why was he the first President since before FDR to cut defense spending?

- and he and LBJ sent America's healthcare system down the wrong path.

LBJ is an idiot.

Please explain how Nixon did this.

Why does Jefferson make it to the "liked" of so many lists, anyway? Is it the Louisiana Purchase, or just automatic love for being a Founder? You are obviously one of the ones who knows he screwed-up in places.

Yeah, I don't get the Jefferson argument either. He didn't make a really great president, as for writers go though, the Declaration is a piece of art - hundreds of years later and its words are still inspiring to this very day.

Please explain how Nixon did this

He followed with LBJ's plan - instead of universal healthcare, he helped to give America, universal bullshit, aka Health Insurance companies gone bat shit crazy.

If he had been an honourable leader, and a level-headed thinker he would have been in ever American textbook as the greatest president for giving the country "universal healthcare", but instead his Medicare plans are forgotten with time because they fucked everyone but those making profit off it.

I don't think it was meant as punishment for rebellion. Considering all Lincoln did to help the South post-Civil War, he doesn't seem the vindictive type. And I'm reasonably certain slavery in the North was non-existant, even without Lincoln's help. Perhaps some in Maryland, and certainly in DC, but otherwise...

I believe it was a punishment measure, but I could be wrong. Here is a quote from Oxford's Desk Encyclopedia of World History, the Emancipation Proclamation, that might interest you:

"The executive order of abolishing slavery in the 'rebel' (Confederate) states of the USA. The Proclamation, issued by President Lincoln as commander-in-chief of the US armed forces, was partly a measure designed to win international support for the Union cause."

Another quote:

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union[...]"

-Abraham Lincoln

I think a lot of it has to do with one's perspective. Lincoln was personally against slavery, but for him it was not that important of an issue. Its ironic that the South seceded after Lincoln's election, because he probably wouldn't have addressed the issue. Its worth noting that his solution to the racial issues of America was to ship the (I guess at this point) former slaves back to Africa.

He followed with LBJ's plan - instead of universal healthcare, he helped to give America, universal bullshit, aka Health Insurance companies gone bat shit crazy.

So you are blaming him for failing to create Universal Healthcare?

If he had been an honourable leader, and a level-headed thinker he would have been in ever American textbook as the greatest president for giving the country "universal healthcare", but instead his Medicare plans are forgotten with time because they fucked everyone but those making profit off it.

What Medicare plan? You are going outline how Nixon's Medicare was any different from his predecessors, other than increasing spending in that area.

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union[...]"


In honest curiosity, where did Lincoln say this? - Because it certainly contradicts himself in at least a few speeches.

I think a lot of it has to do with one's perspective. Lincoln was personally against slavery, but for him it was not that important of an issue. Its ironic that the South seceded after Lincoln's election, because he probably wouldn't have addressed the issue. Its worth noting that his solution to the racial issues of America was to ship the (I guess at this point) former slaves back to Africa.

He accomplished good things, and was a laudable President, but I would like America to stop pretending that he was a crusading saint.

Its worth noting that his solution to the racial issues of America was to ship the (I guess at this point) former slaves back to Africa.

I have heard that before. Liberia?

In honest curiosity, where did Lincoln say this? - Because it certainly contradicts himself in at least a few speeches.

http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/greeley.htm

No shit he contradicts himself; that is what his opponent, Stephen Douglas, accused him of. It is what most successful politicians often do.

He accomplished good things, and was a laudable President, but I would like America to stop pretending that he was a crusading saint.

Because sometimes, people deserve more than just the truth. Sometimes, people deserve their faith to be rewarded - Batman. :)

I think a lot of it has to do with one's perspective. Lincoln was personally against slavery, but for him it was not that important of an issue. Its ironic that the South seceded after Lincoln's election, because he probably wouldn't have addressed the issue. Its worth noting that his solution to the racial issues of America was to ship the (I guess at this point) former slaves back to Africa.

I would more or less agree with this statement. It wasn't that slavery was wrong to Lincoln, it was that slavery was dividing America.

Sometimes people deserve more than just the truth - Batman. :)

Nixon is Batman?

Millard, but its still pretty damn silly.
The current dude is not to be judged yet in regard to most things, until April is over. Even then it's jsut preliminary. After 100 days, you can judge his performance a little but wait on the big judgements until the 1 year mark. But I'd vote him for funniest name, not Milard Filmore or Grover Cleveland. He thinks his name is funny and I have no evidence the other two dudes did (think their names were funny).

The current dude is not to be judged yet in regard to most things, until April is over. Even then it's jsut preliminary. After 100 days, you can judge his performance a little but wait on the big judgements until the 1 year mark. But I'd vote him for funniest name, not Milard Filmore or Grover Cleveland. He thinks his name is funny and I have no evidence the other two dudes did (think their names were funny).

Dudes?

Why?

Why Washington? Because:

* He could have become an American Czar if he wanted and chose not to become one. Think Cincinattus.
* He correctly in my opinion tried to keep us out of Foreign entanglements. Of course that's a personal opinion.

Why Washington? Because:

* He could have become an American Czar if he wanted and chose not to become one. Think Cincinattus.
* He correctly in my opinion tried to keep us out of Foreign entanglements. Of course that's a personal opinion.

Are those reasons he should be at the very top?

Why?

So I think the question is why would I put both Reagan and Clinton on my list?

REAGAN:

* The last president to really bring disparate parts of the electorate together.
* Restored Pride in the US after a miserable decade following Watergate and Vietnam.
* Watched the economics and tried to reign in government spending.
* (This is really more Gorbachev than Reagan) Ensured peaceful relations and the Soviet Union broke up, creating the most comprehensive arms control treaties between the two superpowers ever (granted this was based on Carter's Salt I).
* One of the best communicators in the withe house in my lifetime.

CLINTON:

* Balanced the budget several years in a row. Some often point to the Republican congress as the reason for this, but other presidents on both sides of the asile have had to deal with the same thing and none of them balanced the budget.
* More than balancing the budget, he paid serious attention to the economy despite several downturns in his presidency.
* Was the first president to try to craft a policy to allow gays in the military and get rid of one the last remaining legal dividing lines based on class, race, etc. in American society. As goes the military so goes the country. The military was race integrated long before the American South (and the north too for that matter though Northern segration relied less on law).
* Again, one fo the best communicators I have seen in the White House in my lifetime.

Are those reasons he should be at the very top?

No. My list was not intended to rank them within the categories other than by omitting other presidents.

REAGAN:

* Watched the economics and tried to reign in government spending.

And tripled the deficit....

* (This is really more Gorbachev than Reagan) Ensured peaceful relations and the Soviet Union broke up, creating the most comprehensive arms control treaties between the two superpowers ever (granted this was based on Carter's Salt I).

Nixon signed SALT I, Cater signed SALT II.

And tripled the deficit....



Nixon signed SALT I, Cater signed SALT II.

Thanks for the corrections :). Doesn't change my opinion, but I appreciate being corrected.

Me?
Reagan was the best so far.
The worst? Buchanan.
"President Buchanan! What is your agenda for today?"
"I'm going to sit around and watch cartoons!"
"Anything else?"
"Provoke a Civil War might be for the 6 o'clock hour."
"Did you find a wife yet?"
"No. I'm gay."

The best future president will be the Pink Floyd Pig.

Are those reasons he should be at the very top?
The Constitution was written before they chose Washington unanimously as President, so he couldn't have been King.
Even before that there was the Articles of Confederation

I would more or less agree with this statement. It wasn't that slavery was wrong to Lincoln, it was that slavery was dividing America.
Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation to help demolish the one source of money for the Confederacy,
Agriculture.
The South needed slaves to supply the demand for cotton, indigo, tobbaco, etc.
However, it only applied to states that seceded.
Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, W. Virginia, and Delaware never seceded, so, untill the passing of the 13th Amendment, slavery wasn't banned in the U.S.

States-rights lover, much?

Lincoln started the Civil War?

This must be that bizarro-history the neocons have been advocating.

Last I checked, the neocons love Lincoln.

Why is Wilson not on everyone's worst list? I mean seriously, his administration's domestic repression of dissidents, imperialist war and otherwise complete boning of the country dwarfed just about any other president's heinous actions. He made Bush look like a nice 4th of July picnic.

Wilson is 2nd worst in my book.

Last I checked, the neocons love Lincoln.

One of the few things the Republicans have to be proud of.

Bill Clinton: A very minuscule cut in military spending, and an improvement of the economy.

Fixed for accuracy.

Last I checked, the neocons love Lincoln.
Almost everyone loves Lincoln. Most of the anti-Lincoln sentiment comes from Dixiecrats who switched to the Republican party, so it just sounds like Republicans dont like him.

(Dis)Honorable mention: Dwight Eisenhower - Coups in Iran and Nicaragua; 'Eisenhower Doctrine', however he was pro-civil rights.

Guatemala, not Nicaragua.

Almost everyone loves Lincoln. Most of the anti-Lincoln sentiment comes from Dixiecrats who switched to the Republican party, so it just sounds like Republicans dont like him.

I'm just saying, I have yet to meet a single neocon that dislikes Lincoln.