PDA

View Full Version : General Politics Who are the 10 worst U.S. Presidents of all-time?


Denver Dave
04-08-2009, 02:10 PM
Vote for ten. President Obama not included because he's only months into his first term.

Pitt Gorilla
04-08-2009, 02:20 PM
Carl Peterson.

Simplex3
04-08-2009, 02:21 PM
Carl Peterson.

Thread closed.

Garcia Bronco
04-08-2009, 02:42 PM
Carter
LBJ
Hoover
Coolaige
Harden
Harrison
Grant
Pierce
Van Buren
Madison - accidently marked Monroe.

Honorable mention - Lincoln and FDR.

petegz28
04-08-2009, 02:46 PM
I had to pick the last several Presidents. Carter was just a schmuck. I used to think Reagan was one of the greatest Presidents ever until I realized wha the started with the selling out of this country, including granting amnesty to 10 million+ illegals.

BucEyedPea
04-08-2009, 04:44 PM
Abraham Lincoln
Theodore Roosevelt
Woodrow Wilson
Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Harry S. Truman
Lyndon B. Johnson
Richard Nixon
Jimmy Carter
George W. Bush

VAChief
04-08-2009, 04:48 PM
Abraham Lincoln
Theodore Roosevelt
Woodrow Wilson
Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Harry S. Truman
Lyndon B. Johnson
Richard Nixon
Jimmy Carter
Ronald Reagan
George W. Bush

Why Lincoln and Reagan? The others I can pretty much surmise from what some of your posts. I knew you had some problems with Lincoln, but honestly couldn't remember.

BucEyedPea
04-08-2009, 04:55 PM
Sorry, RR was a typo because I cut and pasted the list then deleted the ones I didn't want reamaing. I simply missed him.

As for Lincoln, use "Lincoln" in the search on this board with my screen name. You'll see why.
I don't want to hijack the thread. This will definitely do that. Plus I'm too tired to get into it.

VAChief
04-08-2009, 05:00 PM
Sorry, RR was a typo because I cut and pasted the list then deleted the ones I didn't want reamaing. I simply missed him.

As for Lincoln, use "Lincoln" in the search on this board with my screen name. You'll see why.

Reagan I admired for his speaking abilities, but generally thought he was a puppet like many turn out to be. Overrated, but I still thought he was a good guy.

On a side note I visited Montpelier this afternoon. It struck me how things have changed. Presidents leaving office back then often went bankrupt or lived rather normal lives. Now they get even richer.

bango
04-08-2009, 05:03 PM
I started off with Carter, Nixon, Wilson, Taft, Johnson, Buchanon, and Jackson. I then added those that were in Office while slavery was legal. I forgot about LBJ. I considred W and Ronny, but only time will tell with them. BEP, I could not add Lincoln after he abolished slavery. I would hope that even though he did not do that for the correct reasons would be reason enough to not make him one of the worst ever.

patteeu
04-08-2009, 05:06 PM
So far, Obama makes my top 10.

banyon
04-08-2009, 05:06 PM
Why Lincoln and Reagan? The others I can pretty much surmise from what some of your posts. I knew you had some problems with Lincoln, but honestly couldn't remember.

Lincoln was a serial rapist. Didn't you know?

(She really believes something along those lines)

wild1
04-08-2009, 05:34 PM
Lincoln was a serial rapist. Didn't you know?

(She really believes something along those lines)

wtf

Fat Elvis
04-08-2009, 06:01 PM
wtf

That pretty much surmises BEP.

wild1
04-08-2009, 06:03 PM
He's already #1 in the price tag, at least

Pitt Gorilla
04-08-2009, 06:05 PM
He's already #1 in the price tag, at leastI deleted that post, as I thought I should show more tact. Obama my indeed end up being in the bottom 10, but I can't imagine someone making that argument less than a year into his Presidency. Not only that, the OP specifically eliminated that option due to the incomplete nature of his work.

wild1
04-08-2009, 06:11 PM
I deleted that post, as I thought I should show more tact. Obama my indeed end up being in the bottom 10, but I can't imagine someone making that argument less than a year into his Presidency. Not only that, the OP specifically eliminated that option due to the incomplete nature of his work.

updated

I think the incomplete nature of his work is helping him. :doh!:

SNR
04-08-2009, 06:23 PM
Here are the 10 I picked in chronological order, not in the order of best or worst:

Franklin Pierce
James Buchanan
Andrew Johnson
Ulysses S. Grant
Woodrow Wilson
Warren Harding
Franklin Roosevelt
Lyndon Johnson
Richard Nixon
George W. Bush

patteeu
04-08-2009, 06:24 PM
I deleted that post, as I thought I should show more tact. Obama my indeed end up being in the bottom 10, but I can't imagine someone making that argument less than a year into his Presidency. Not only that, the OP specifically eliminated that option due to the incomplete nature of his work.

I think the OP is incomplete without him. However, it's Denver Dave's thread and he can start it the way he wants to.

mlyonsd
04-08-2009, 06:31 PM
I think the OP is incomplete without him. However, it's Denver Dave's thread and he can start it the way he wants to.Imagine if this thread would have been started in APR/2001 after Bush stole the election.

Oh wait, you weren't here yet....fricking n00b.

Back then a lot on the board didn't even think he was the real president.

Denver Dave
04-09-2009, 01:55 AM
Without Polk, the AFC West would have three Mexican cities with teams - Denver, Oakland, and San Diego.

BucEyedPea
04-09-2009, 05:37 AM
wtf

Are you going to believe a lying socialist? Don't ever go by one of the lefties here to state my stands accurately. I never said anything about Lincoln raping anyone. That's pure embellishment by a lover of central planning and big govt something Lincoln was also fond of. His presidency was the re-emergence of the Whigs and Federalists and their corporatism.

I just happen to have done more investigation, inspired by the movie Gangs of New York and his shooting war protestors which led to me to more reading about the man. I found out that he also shut down printing presses, jailed war dissenters/opponents in his day and sent a warrant to arrest CJ Taney for saying his suspension on habeus corpus unconstitutional. There's more but you can use the search but he is another annointed saint who has much left out about him and how the early days of our Republic was meant to be— a voluntary union. Afterall, the nawth won that war and it was dominated by the mercantilist Whigs, the very people banyon claims to be against. So they got to write the history books. Hagiographies are written about a handful of presidents. Lincoln's is one of the most whitewashed.

acesn8s
04-09-2009, 06:07 AM
Are you going to believe a lying socialist? Don't ever go by one of the lefties here to state my stands accurately. I never said anything about Lincoln raping anyone. That's pure embellishment by a lover of central planning and big govt something Lincoln was also fond of. His presidency was the re-emergence of the Whigs and Federalists and their corporatism.

I just happen to have done more investigation, inspired by the movie Gangs of New York and his shooting war protestors which led to me to more reading about the man. I found out that he also shut down printing presses, jailed war dissenters/opponents in his day and sent a warrant to arrest CJ Taney for saying his suspension on habeus corpus unconstitutional. There's more but you can use the search but he is another annointed saint who has much left out about him and how the early days of our Republic was meant to beó a voluntary union. Afterall, the nawth won that war and it was dominated by the mercantilist Whigs, the very people banyon claims to be against. So they got to write the history books. Hagiographies are written about a handful of presidents. Lincoln's is one of the most whitewashed.Then why isn't Adams on your list? He had protestors jailed for holding signs outside his home. A clear violation of the 2nd adm.

Garcia Bronco
04-09-2009, 08:23 AM
Here are the 10 I picked in chronological order, not in the order of best or worst:

Franklin Pierce
James Buchanan
Andrew Johnson
Ulysses S. Grant
Woodrow Wilson
Warren Harding
Franklin Roosevelt
Lyndon Johnson
Richard Nixon
George W. Bush

I thought Johnson did a good job despite having a Congress that was more than out to get him.

Garcia Bronco
04-09-2009, 08:24 AM
Then why isn't Adams on your list? He had protestors jailed for holding signs outside his home. A clear violation of the 2nd adm.

Maybe they weren't being peaceful. That is a contingency.

Garcia Bronco
04-09-2009, 08:25 AM
Without Polk, the AFC West would have three Mexican cities with teams - Denver, Oakland, and San Diego.

Polk my have pushed it, but Taylor and Fuss and Feathers made it happen.

oldandslow
04-09-2009, 09:10 AM
I only have 8 that I consider horrid - the rest get passing grades.

James Buchanan -sat by while our world got ready for war
Marten Van Buren - carried out Jackson's will with Trail of Tears
Andrew Jackson - an evil man. period. I could write a thesis but won't
Richard Nixon - watergate
Jimmy Carter - Irangate
Woodrow Wilson - Got us into WWI when we did not need to be there - led to WWII
Warren G. Harding - biggest crook ever
Herbert Hoover - gave huge bailouts to banks while the world fell into a depression - oh, wait....

Mr. Kotter
04-09-2009, 09:19 AM
It's way too early to include W. in on this type of poll....anyone who thinks they KNOW how W.'s legacy will pan-out is either lying or stupid--or both. It doesn't look good at the moment, but neither did Truman's in 1952. If Iraq ends up a "success" that could save his butt.

oldandslow
04-09-2009, 09:25 AM
It's way too early to include W. in on this type of poll....anyone who thinks they KNOW how W.'s legacy will pan-out is either lying or stupid--or both. It doesn't look good at the moment, but neither did Truman's in 1952. If Iraq ends up a "success" that could save his butt.

Yep...even though I don't like him. Maybe he was right about Iraq. Maybe not. We'll see.

Mr. Kotter
04-09-2009, 09:50 AM
Yep...even though I don't like him. Maybe he was right about Iraq. Maybe not. We'll see.

Your rankings are pretty good. You've got Jackson, Van Buren, and Wilson on there and they'd be close for me....but I consider gross incompetence, laziness, and lack of integrity to be even more of a sin than racism and bigotry (epecially when viewed through the prism of history.) Thus John Q, Tyler, Pierce, Johnson, Hayes, and Coolidge rate lower in my book (yes, I realize John Q redeemed himself later.)

MOhillbilly
04-09-2009, 10:05 AM
Say what you want about Jackson but he was one tough SOB.

Garcia Bronco
04-09-2009, 10:30 AM
Say what you want about Jackson but he was one tough SOB.

Amen. The kicked'em, stab'em, and shot'em and he still kept coming. He was even a POW. Shot while in office. Took Florida from the Spanish. Save the LA Purchase from foreign invaders on the ground. Amazing man.

Simplex3
04-09-2009, 11:22 AM
Can I vote for FDR ten times?

oldandslow
04-09-2009, 11:24 AM
Say what you want about Jackson but he was one tough SOB.

So was Stalin. Doesn't mean I want him as president.

Amnorix
04-09-2009, 11:28 AM
Are you going to believe a lying socialist? Don't ever go by one of the lefties here to state my stands accurately. I never said anything about Lincoln raping anyone.

Right, you just said he condoned it.

I think Sherman was a pyromaniac and a terrorist who waged war on non-combatant un-armed citizens in violation of the Geneva Convention of 1863. They raped women too. Of course other generals committed similar acts, which Lincoln endorsed. This was the forerunner to "total war."

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=4320410&postcount=71

Mr. Kotter
04-09-2009, 11:28 AM
Say what you want about Jackson but he was one tough SOB.


So was Hitler.

Mr. Kotter
04-09-2009, 11:31 AM
Right, you just said he condoned it.



http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=4320410&postcount=71

He may not have condoned it, but he did condone Grant and Sherman's philosophy of "total war"....and didn't intend to agressively police or punish such actions after the war.

Amnorix
04-09-2009, 11:37 AM
He may not have condoned it, but he did condone Grant and Sherman's philosophy of "total war"....and didn't intend to agressively police or punish such actions after the war.

Sherman did little different from what Lee's troops did while tromping through Pennsylvania on the way to Gettysberg, and a damn sight less than Forrest and some others operating on the shady side of warfare did.

IN FACT, it may interest you to know that some in Georgia complained that the Confederates chasing after Sherman were as bad as Sherman himself when it came to pillaging/foraging etc.

Let's be serious about Sherman's total war -- it was economic war. Compared to the fire bombings of Dresden or dropping an atomic bomb on a major city, it was nothing. And certainly in the history of war, both before and since, it was nothing remotely unusual.

Amnorix
04-09-2009, 11:39 AM
I came up with only 9.

More interesting than who I did vote for, perhaps, is who I didn't:

1. Carter. A thoroughly mediocre President, much occurred that he had little or no control over, and yet gets the blame for. He could easily have been #10, but I couldn't really condone it when I left off....

2. George W. Bush. IMHO it's too soon to rank him. We'll have a better idea once Iraq shakes out better. I've said all along that Iraq will be his legacy, and since Iraq isn't resolved yet, neither is Bush's place in history.

This economic crisis, however, when stacked with Iraq, could easily put Bush into the bottom five. I'll see how Iraq and the recession goes, however, before I make any final determinations for my part.

Mr. Kotter
04-09-2009, 11:51 AM
Sherman did little different from what Lee's troops did while tromping through Pennsylvania on the way to Gettysberg, and a damn sight less than Forrest and some others operating on the shady side of warfare did.

IN FACT, it may interest you to know that some in Georgia complained that the Confederates chasing after Sherman were as bad as Sherman himself when it came to pillaging/foraging etc.

Let's be serious about Sherman's total war -- it was economic war. Compared to the fire bombings of Dresden or dropping an atomic bomb on a major city, it was nothing. And certainly in the history of war, both before and since, it was nothing remotely unusual.

IMHO, you are glossing over some pretty egregious conduct and violations. Suffice it to say, many historians would characterize Sherman's actions much more harshly than you seem willing to concede.

I'll agree things got even worse in the 20th Century, as the "rules" of warfare evolved....but at the time, the union's total war approach is, in part at least, responsible for a more ruthless and immoral, some would say, approach to fighting wars.

Amnorix
04-09-2009, 01:32 PM
IMHO, you are glossing over some pretty egregious conduct and violations. Suffice it to say, many historians would characterize Sherman's actions much more harshly than you seem willing to concede.

I'll agree things got even worse in the 20th Century, as the "rules" of warfare evolved....but at the time, the union's total war approach is, in part at least, responsible for a more ruthless and immoral, some would say, approach to fighting wars.

Everything is relative.

Compare what Sherman did to what Genghis Khan or Tamerlane did and it's not even a comparison. They laid waste to both the enemy's means of self-support as well as to the actual citizens of their enemies -- pillaging and absolutely razing cities to the ground.

"Total War" isn't a new concept. It's one that was temporarily lost for a couple of centuries (especially in Europe) and then rediscovered again. What's really new is realigning the entire economy and workforce to solely dedicate itself to warfare. THAT is new. Just pillaging and razing the enemy's means of economic support is as old as time itself.

P.S. -- make no mistake -- what Sherman did was FAR more destructive than what Forrest or Lee did. The reasons for that are obvious:

1. Sherman operated much further behind enemy lines, and for far longer, and therefore had much more opportunity to do damage.

2. Sherman's opposition was weak and ineffectual, and he didn't have much need to worry about a large enemy force bringing him to battle.

BUT -- keep in mind that for all of "Sherman's neckties" and all that business, the trains went from Macon to Augusta or whatever it was within two months of his leaving Georgia. And for all the pillaging of food, there was ABSOLUTELY NO FAMINE as a result. the swath of destruction was in too limited an area. The effects of his march were as much or more PHYSCHOLOGICAL, as actual. The FACT that he could operate at will deep in the enemy's breadbasket was as disastrous to the Confederate resolve as anything that he did except perhaps for the razing of Atlanta, which was the second most important city and production center in the Confederacy.

One of my favorite quotes (roughly):

Carolina boy to Georgia boy (Confederate soldiers both), while Sherman was camped out in Savannah after completing the March to the Sea: "Say, why did y'all let Sherman go right through your state and do all that destruction? That's terrible."

Georgia boy's response: "Well, he's coming for you next, and you won't be able to stop him neither."

And they didn't. And the fact of his ability to operate at will in enemy territory, and that he was marching ever closer to Richmond to crush Lee between the hammer of Sherman and the anvil of Grant, meant the war was utterly lost for the Confederates.

Mr. Kotter
04-09-2009, 01:41 PM
Everything is relative.

Compare what Sherman did to what Genghis Khan or Tamerlane did and it's not even a comparison. They laid waste to both the enemy's means of self-support as well as to the actual citizens of their enemies -- pillaging and absolutely razing cities to the ground.

"Total War" isn't a new concept. It's one that was temporarily lost for a couple of centuries (especially in Europe) and then rediscovered again. What's really new is realigning the entire economy and workforce to solely dedicate itself to warfare. THAT is new. Just pillaging and razing the enemy's means of economic support is as old as time itself.

Context, man. Context.

In the Western European and European American civilizations, "total war" as practiced by Sherman raised significant moral and ethical questions. Yes, pillaging and razing the enemy had happened....however, we were, morally, supposed to be above that--especially when directed at your own countryman.

Amnorix
04-09-2009, 01:54 PM
Context, man. Context.

In the Western European and European American civilizations, "total war" as practiced by Sherman raised significant moral and ethical questions. Yes, pillaging and razing the enemy had happened....however, we were, morally, supposed to be above that--especially when directed at your own countryman.

Really? How many died during the French revolution, which was only 60 or so years old at the start of our Civil War? How many died by execution -- not even in the context of war, total or not. Did the British not mostly raze Washington DC during the War of 1812? Did the Americans not mostly raze York (Toronto)?

Putting myself in his shoes, it's fair to say that with a few limited exceptions, I would have done pretty much precisely what he did. Most of the exceptions would be linked to some pretty pathetic treatment of the slaves that were tagging along behind his army, but even that had some justification, as he could not afford to be bogged down with an extra army of poor, barefoot souls with no ability to support themselves.

As a military operation, it was outstanding. In the context of being 4 years into a long and bloody Civil War that was destroying the country, I dont' see any moral quandry about his tactics to eliminate both the Confederate economic engine supporting the war, or their resolve to continue the fight.

Amnorix
04-09-2009, 02:02 PM
I freely admit to being a tad more bloodthirsty than most in the context of war. This whole Somalian pirates thing both amuses and astounds me. The answer is simple -- every pirate that is caught is fed to the fishes, immediately and without trial. The sailors on the ships that capture them just put them overboard.

We "solved" piracy over a hundred years ago, but now we've become so squeamish that piracy is safe and profitable. It's completely f**king absurd.

patteeu
04-09-2009, 02:22 PM
I freely admit to being a tad more bloodthirsty than most in the context of war. This whole Somalian pirates thing both amuses and astounds me. The answer is simple -- every pirate that is caught is fed to the fishes, immediately and without trial. The sailors on the ships that capture them just put them overboard.

We "solved" piracy over a hundred years ago, but now we've become so squeamish that piracy is safe and profitable. It's completely f**king absurd.

You're not alone.

Simplex3
04-09-2009, 02:25 PM
We "solved" piracy over a hundred years ago, but now we've become so squeamish that piracy is safe and profitable. It's completely f**king absurd.

Is it because we're squeamish or is it because we are so damned dependent on others to provide our safety? I think it's probably a combination of the two.

KC Dan
04-09-2009, 02:39 PM
I freely admit to being a tad more bloodthirsty than most in the context of war. This whole Somalian pirates thing both amuses and astounds me. The answer is simple -- every pirate that is caught is fed to the fishes, immediately and without trial. The sailors on the ships that capture them just put them overboard.

We "solved" piracy over a hundred years ago, but now we've become so squeamish that piracy is safe and profitable. It's completely f**king absurd.Correct but the pirates may have a camera....... That is the mindset we are dealing with now unfortunately. I say to Davy Jones' locker with 'em!

Amnorix
04-09-2009, 03:27 PM
Is it because we're squeamish or is it because we are so damned dependent on others to provide our safety? I think it's probably a combination of the two.

I was about to rant and rave a bit, but I think I misread at first.

Do you mean the cargo ships that are being pirated depending on warships to defend them, instead of being armed. If that's what you mean, then I'm fine with that, and agree that it's a combo of that bit of dumbassery (unless you're on a ship carrying some type of explosive), plus the international squeamishness.

Amnorix
04-09-2009, 03:31 PM
Correct but the pirates may have a camera....... That is the mindset we are dealing with now unfortunately. I say to Davy Jones' locker with 'em!

Makes no difference.

The problem is that nobody has or wants jurisdiction, and nobody wants to seem like they're just bloodthirsty or whatever. And the UN is a bunch of pansies alot of the time.

1. Any ship that isn't carrying flammables should have at least a couple of guys that have weapons.

2. any pirate ship that is caught gets sunk, and so does their crew. Captured alive or not. We used to hang 'em, and that's fine.

3. if a particular port is identified as supporting pirates, then it gets ONE, precisely ONE warning. If they continue to support the pirates, then it gets burned out. All dock facilities, all ships in port, everything that makes a port a port gets blown to hell.

There you go.

banyon
04-09-2009, 03:32 PM
Are you going to believe a lying socialist? Don't ever go by one of the lefties here to state my stands accurately. I never said anything about Lincoln raping anyone. That's pure embellishment by a lover of central planning and big govt something Lincoln was also fond of. His presidency was the re-emergence of the Whigs and Federalists and their corporatism.

I just happen to have done more investigation, inspired by the movie Gangs of New York and his shooting war protestors which led to me to more reading about the man. I found out that he also shut down printing presses, jailed war dissenters/opponents in his day and sent a warrant to arrest CJ Taney for saying his suspension on habeus corpus unconstitutional. There's more but you can use the search but he is another annointed saint who has much left out about him and how the early days of our Republic was meant to beó a voluntary union. Afterall, the nawth won that war and it was dominated by the mercantilist Whigs, the very people banyon claims to be against. So they got to write the history books. Hagiographies are written about a handful of presidents. Lincoln's is one of the most whitewashed.

The archives are a b*tch.

I think Sherman was a pyromaniac and a terrorist who waged war on non-combatant un-armed citizens in violation of the Geneva Convention of 1863. They raped women too. Of course other generals committed similar acts, which Lincoln endorsed. This was the forerunner to "total war."

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=4320586&highlight=endorsed#post4320586

banyon
04-09-2009, 03:32 PM
Right, you just said he condoned it.



http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=4320410&postcount=71

Endorsed, but you beat me to it.

Amnorix
04-09-2009, 03:40 PM
Endorsed, but you beat me to it.

Right, good point. Endorsing is stronger than just condoning.

Pitt Gorilla
04-09-2009, 03:50 PM
I freely admit to being a tad more bloodthirsty than most in the context of war. This whole Somalian pirates thing both amuses and astounds me. The answer is simple -- every pirate that is caught is fed to the fishes, immediately and without trial. The sailors on the ships that capture them just put them overboard.

We "solved" piracy over a hundred years ago, but now we've become so squeamish that piracy is safe and profitable. It's completely f**king absurd.I'm probably a bit worse than even you. I would try to get a clean shot of everyone on board the raft with the hostage. If that wasn't possible, I'd prefer they blow the whole thing out of the water. It would stink to lose an American, but it might make them think twice about f'ing with an American ship in the future if we just demolished them when it happens.

patteeu
04-09-2009, 04:23 PM
I'm probably a bit worse than even you. I would try to get a clean shot of everyone on board the raft with the hostage. If that wasn't possible, I'd prefer they blow the whole thing out of the water. It would stink to lose an American, but it might make them think twice about f'ing with an American ship in the future if we just demolished them when it happens.

In this case, I think they should just wait it out. The pirates don't have anywhere they can go and they have no incentive to kill the hostage. Unlike fanatics and lunatics, these pirates seem to be rational criminals who value their own lives to some degree. They'll probably decide that it's better to give up and do some time rather than go out with their guns blazing.

Simplex3
04-09-2009, 04:28 PM
I was about to rant and rave a bit, but I think I misread at first.

Do you mean the cargo ships that are being pirated depending on warships to defend them, instead of being armed. If that's what you mean, then I'm fine with that, and agree that it's a combo of that bit of dumbassery (unless you're on a ship carrying some type of explosive), plus the international squeamishness.

I think it's part that the ships aren't arming themselves, but I think the reason they don't is part of the larger picture of people in general being too big a bunch of pansies to defend themselves.

BucEyedPea
04-09-2009, 04:34 PM
Then why isn't Adams on your list? He had protestors jailed for holding signs outside his home. A clear violation of the 2nd adm.

I could only pick ten. None of them were perfect. The ones I chose trump Adams imo. I like Jackson on the US bank but not on the Trail of Tears. I like that Van Buren didn't intervene during his depression despite the wailing and gnashing of teeth that he do something. It was over with in a year. I was just warming up about Lincoln anyway. It 's just that under Lincoln that the philosophy behind our republic was destroyed....paving way for the mercantilists and the legal positivists from which our modern legal profession emerged. Even if he may have saved it geographically. FWIW I think the south wouldn't have been able to survive on it's own and would have re-entered the union. Secession was a check on the Feds if they got too out of hand. That's now gone.

BucEyedPea
04-09-2009, 04:40 PM
It's way too early to include W. in on this type of poll....anyone who thinks they KNOW how W.'s legacy will pan-out is either lying or stupid--or both. It doesn't look good at the moment, but neither did Truman's in 1952. If Iraq ends up a "success" that could save his butt.
Well, hey Lincoln wasn't that popular with a lot of people in his time( not saying he didn't have supporters though)...now he's an untouchable saint and it's blasphemy to be critical of him.

BucEyedPea
04-09-2009, 04:42 PM
That pretty much surmises BEP.

You're using that word incorrectly. Surmise means to infer from incomplete evidence. Don't how that works here.

BucEyedPea
04-09-2009, 04:43 PM
I'll agree things got even worse in the 20th Century, as the "rules" of warfare evolved....but at the time, the union's total war approach is, in part at least, responsible for a more ruthless and immoral, some would say, approach to fighting wars.

Yup, I'd agree with that. Some historians claim it was the forerunner to total war.

Adept Havelock
04-09-2009, 05:27 PM
Right, good point. Endorsing is stronger than just condoning.

Nicely done, Amnorix and Banyon. Thanks for the chuckle. :thumb:

Dave Lane
04-09-2009, 07:30 PM
Honorable mention - Lincoln and FDR.

ROFL ROFL ROFL

Dave Lane
04-09-2009, 07:36 PM
I could only pick ten. None of them were perfect. The ones I chose trump Adams imo. I like Jackson on the US bank but not on the Trail of Tears. I like that Van Buren didn't intervene during his depression despite the wailing and gnashing of teeth that he do something. It was over with in a year. I was just warming up about Lincoln anyway. It 's just that under Lincoln that the philosophy behind our republic was destroyed....paving way for the mercantilists and the legal positivists from which our modern legal profession emerged. Even if he may have saved it geographically. FWIW I think the south wouldn't have been able to survive on it's own and would have re-entered the union. Secession was a check on the Feds if they got too out of hand. That's now gone.

So Lincoln was a socialist too? Thats a awesome backflip to get to that. You have a gift my friend.

Dave Lane
04-09-2009, 07:38 PM
So far, Obama makes my top 10.

Its 20 months to the mid-term elections. You have only been out of power for 10 weeks. You need to learn to pace your rage.

BucEyedPea
04-09-2009, 07:55 PM
So Lincoln was a socialist too? Thats a awesome backflip to get to that. You have a gift my friend.

I didn't say that. I said mercantilists. Ya' know crony capitalists aka corporatists. You really are illiterate aren't you.

Dave Lane
04-09-2009, 09:42 PM
I didn't say that. I said mercantilists. Ya' know crony capitalists aka corporatists. You really are illiterate aren't you.

Well at least I haven't been elected the Planets one trick pony. Congrats on that by the way it may well be the achievement of a lifetime for you!

banyon
04-09-2009, 10:20 PM
I didn't say that. I said mercantilists. Ya' know crony capitalists aka corporatists. You really are illiterate aren't you.

Yeah, c'mon. Socialists, Communists, fascists, mercantilists, corporatists, they're all the same...somehow, right? As long as they're not part of the church of the acolytes and differences can be glossed over.

Dave Lane
04-09-2009, 10:58 PM
Yeah, c'mon. Socialists, Communists, fascists, mercantilists, corporatists, they're all the same...somehow, right? As long as they're not part of the church of the acolytes and differences can be glossed over.

Unless they are Austrians or patriots!

patteeu
04-10-2009, 07:48 AM
Its 20 months to the mid-term elections. You have only been out of power for 10 weeks. You need to learn to pace your rage.

LOL @ "rage". Thanks for the advice though. Communism takes a little getting used to, but I'm sure I'll get the hang of it. :p

Garcia Bronco
04-10-2009, 07:55 AM
ROFL ROFL ROFL

Lincoln broke the law and was oppressive. There is no wonder why they shot him. And FDR intoduced us to a big bag of WTF with his social programs that are killing the tax payer today. They both did great things, but terrible things.

Amnorix
04-10-2009, 08:20 AM
Lincoln broke the law and was oppressive. There is no wonder why they shot him. And FDR intoduced us to a big bag of WTF with his social programs that are killing the tax payer today. They both did get things, but terrible things.

WTF? You act like it was an act of Congress instead of hte act of a few bitter and deranged loner/losers that then threw the country into mourning. Hell, even the South wasn't really thrilled because many knew that Lincoln wouldn't be hell-bent for revenge.

Amnorix
04-10-2009, 08:21 AM
LOL @ "rage". Thanks for the advice though. Communism takes a little getting used to, but I'm sure I'll get the hang of it. :p


In terms of the economy -- how has your bottom 10 candidate Obama's policies been THAT different from your top 10 (no doubt) buddy George W's?

Hell, Geithner was half-running the show during the Bush era, and now he's one of the main men for Obama.

patteeu
04-10-2009, 08:35 AM
In terms of the economy -- how has your bottom 10 candidate Obama's policies been THAT different from your top 10 (no doubt) buddy George W's?

Hell, Geithner was half-running the show during the Bush era, and now he's one of the main men for Obama.

I don't know whether my buddy George W would make my top 10 or not. He certainly wouldn't make it on the basis of his economic policies with the exception of his tax policies which were far better than Obama's but still far short of what I'd favor.

And while Obama is currently near the bottom of my rankings as a result of his promises to explode the budget, disarm America, and take over large parts of the economy, there's still time for him to redeem himself and move up the rankings. I'm open minded. :D

Garcia Bronco
04-10-2009, 01:39 PM
WTF? You act like it was an act of Congress instead of hte act of a few bitter and deranged loner/losers that then threw the country into mourning. Hell, even the South wasn't really thrilled because many knew that Lincoln wouldn't be hell-bent for revenge.

I don't think you're really in a postion to know how many people wanted him dead or not. The fact is people wanted him dead and they had many good reasons. If George Bush did what Lincoln did you'd agree I am sure.

El Jefe
04-10-2009, 02:59 PM
Vote for ten. President Obama not included because he's only months into his first term.

He's number 1 on my list as the worst already.

StcChief
04-11-2009, 03:10 PM
Obama.
Carter
FDR
Clinton
Hayes
Hoover

BucEyedPea
04-11-2009, 03:51 PM
Obama.
Carter
FDR
Clinton
Hayes
Hoover

That's not ten.

BucEyedPea
04-11-2009, 04:05 PM
Originally Posted by Amnorix View Post
Hell, even the South wasn't really thrilled because many knew that Lincoln wouldn't be hell-bent for revenge.

No one person is all bad...and that was one of Lincoln's better points. He was also going to forgive the south their war debt which infuriated bankers. All that interest lost! According to some conspiracy theorists, Booth was paid by them. And the reason Johnson was impeached was because he was going to follow the same policy of mercy that Lincoln wanted. The radical Republicans were not the good guys.

Amnorix
04-11-2009, 08:40 PM
No one person is all bad...and that was one of Lincoln's better points. He was also going to forgive the south their war debt which infuriated bankers. All that interest lost! According to some conspiracy theorists, Booth was paid by them. And the reason Johnson was impeached was because he was going to follow the same policy of mercy that Lincoln wanted. The radical Republicans were not the good guys.

It's fair to say that I've never heard of, nor do I much credit, any banker conspiracy theory behind the Lincoln assassination.

Amnorix
04-11-2009, 08:43 PM
He's number 1 on my list as the worst already.

Right. Remind me to ignore anything you say about history since you apparently don't know any.

jjchieffan
04-11-2009, 09:02 PM
My presidential history is lacking, so I won't list ten, but here are the ones I can think of from the 20th century that were just awful.
Clinton, Carter, LBJ, Hoover

BucEyedPea
04-11-2009, 09:04 PM
It's fair to say that I've never heard of, nor do I much credit, any banker conspiracy theory behind the Lincoln assassination.

Yeah, I've heard that one. Actually it, was a theory. But the Radical Republicans were a nasty bunch in themselves.

J Diddy
04-11-2009, 09:11 PM
i feel like an electoral college tonight, W gets all 10 of mine

Nightwish
04-11-2009, 11:04 PM
Then why isn't Adams on your list? He had protestors jailed for holding signs outside his home. A clear violation of the 2nd adm.
I believe you mean the 1st Amendment (the 2nd Amendment was about the right to keep and bear arms). Peaceful Assembly was part of the 1st Amendment, along with freedom of speech, religion and the press.

But you're right, Adams, with his Alien & Sedition Act (a precursor to the Patriot Act) established the model by which modern Republicans have molded themselves wrt the way they respond to opposition and criticism of their policies.

Nightwish
04-11-2009, 11:06 PM
I think the OP is incomplete without him. However, it's Denver Dave's thread and he can start it the way he wants to.
Do you truly believe it is fair to judge someone as one of the best or worst Presidents in US history after only three months in office? Or are you just letting your still-stinging butt get the better of your judgment?

patteeu
04-12-2009, 06:20 AM
Do you truly believe it is fair to judge someone as one of the best or worst Presidents in US history after only three months in office? Or are you just letting your still-stinging butt get the better of your judgment?

Fair is my middle name.

wazu
04-12-2009, 10:32 AM
Only voted for nine since Obama is not on the list. (And yes, he's already done enough to make the list, weighing down future generations with unprecedented debt and tax burdens.)

wazu
04-12-2009, 10:35 AM
Kind of surprised there isn't more support for Taft, the "Father of the Sixteenth Amendment".

StcChief
04-12-2009, 11:02 AM
Only voted for nine since Obama is not on the list. (And yes, he's already done enough to make the list, weighing down future generations with unprecedented debt and tax burdens.)yeah. he's way out of his league for this job. The Trillions already spending is more than total ever spent?

VAChief
04-12-2009, 11:11 AM
Kind of surprised there isn't more support for Taft, the "Father of the Sixteenth Amendment".

Or Nixon, who despite his strengths as an executive saw fit to wipe his ass with the 4th ammendment.