Best/Worst Presidents

[Direckshun]

I've been watching the History Channel a lot this week on their special highlighting all 47 Presidents we've had. It calls itself the "ultimate guide" to the Presidents, but it's mostly a great primer on all the Presidents.

Anyway, it's been a while since we've done this.

But who are the best 5 Presidents in American history in your opinion, and who were 5 of the worst? Do your best to explain.

Also, where would you place our most recent Presidents (because why not): Obama, Bush II, Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, Carter

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by frazod

I wondered when your bitch ass would show up. Typical Boston pussy response.

SO WHAT IF HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS DIED? MILLIONS OF LIVES RUINED? **** 'EM! THEY WERE JUST PEONS ANYWAY, SO WHO CARES? EAT SHIT YOU ORPHANED BASTARDS, FIND WORK AT FACTORY SOMEWHERE!

Your post makes no sense. Just sayin'.

[frazod]

Originally Posted by Amnorix

Your post makes no sense. Just sayin'.

Should be right up your alley, then.

[FishingRod]

Ranking the Prez's of my lifetime:
I was born in 1959, best to worst:
JFK
Ike
Clinton
Reagan
Obama
Bush 41
Ford
Carter
LBJ
George W Bush
Nixon

Total agreement


Ever wonder how the guy at the bottom of your list might have ranked had he won instead of JFK. It is a fascinating exercise in what if?

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by DementedLogic

He didn't do anything to try and curb slavery prior to the civil war. In fact, he spoke to the exact opposite. The industrial revolution happened without central planning from the federal government, and it would have continued without it . I believe that a unified north and south did lead to greater economic progress, but I believe that, with time, that would've happened regardless. Lincoln's goal wasn't to create a unified north and south and end slavery. They were unintended benefits of his terrible decisions. They were also things that would've happened regardless. However, the consequence of removing the restraint of voluntary membership of the United States has led to massive expansion of the federal government that otherwise would not have occurred. In turn this has led decreasing freedom.

You seem very confused about the timeline. Most of the Southern stated seceded BEFORE Lincoln was even sworn in. He didn't DO anything to cause them to secede, other than actually win the election.

If Lincoln would've sought to unify the north and south, rather than pit them against each other, then you could give him credit for it. Lincoln's goal was power, and he knew that he could win and keep the presidency by keeping the North happy, at the expense of the south. He pushed the south over the tipping point, and damn near lost the whole union as a result.

You're hopelessly confused.

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by frazod

The one thing I will say is that had the war not ended like it did, we'd all be speaking German right now. Nothing but a unified America could have survived the 20th century.

Unlikely Germany could have captured America. That kind of naval domination was beyond its means for a very, very long time (decades, not years).

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

Probably not. England would have retaken an weakened America. Took all of our resources back to england. Taken control of the cotton crop. And become the all powerful big dog on the block, again.

Retaken? How? You don't seem to know how big America had become by the time of hte Civil War. There was no earthly way England had that kind of capability by the mid/late 1800s. We weren't India...

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by frazod

I doubt it. Too much territory, too many people, too much ocean to cross. We were weakened by Jeffersonian idiocy to the point where we had no army or navy to speak of during the start of the War of 1812 and still managed to fight them off.

Hey, we agree on something!!

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

Hello...Hello...anyone home

1. Louisana Purchase
2. Louis and Clark expedition
3. Kept us of of the European War
4. Fought back against those who wanted more religion in government

Louisiana Purchase was a no-brainer.

Louis and Clark -- sure, check.

Kept us out of the European War -- not sure how many were advocating to join it, to be honest. And his embargo was just a wee bit heavy-handed and caused a serious recession in the US.

He was an ok President. Not nearly as bad as he was a Vice President, or a Secretary of State. I'll give him that...

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by frazod

He dismantled our armed forces while continually giving the greatest military power on earth the finger. FAIL! But the Louisiana Purchase sort of makes up for it.

I have great respect for him as an intellectual and inventor, some respect for his as a founder, very little as president, and pretty much none as a man. He was a coward and a hypocrite. Another one who was all for bloody revolution, as long as everybody but him was doing the bleeding.

We're 2 for 2. If only American history stopped at about 1820 I'm sure we'd be fast friends in historical matters.

[DementedLogic]

Originally Posted by Amnorix

You seem very confused about the timeline. Most of the Southern stated seceded BEFORE Lincoln was even sworn in. He didn't DO anything to cause them to secede, other than actually win the election.

They seceded because he won the election. Lincoln's agenda was based on wealth redistribution from the south to the north. He knew that he could win the election without winning a single southern state, and he ran with it. The southern states warned that they would secede from the union if Lincoln won election. He didn't receive a single vote in 10 different states.

You are completely making up this idea that the south seceded to preserve slavery. Lincoln was opposed to abolition of slavery. The south seceded because the federal government was infringing on state's rights, and because of northern protectionism.

You're hopelessly confused.

You are hopelessly confused in your revisionist history that the civil war was fought over slavery.

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by DementedLogic

They seceded because he won the election. Lincoln's agenda was based on wealth redistribution from the south to the north. He knew that he could win the election without winning a single southern state, and he ran with it. The southern states warned that they would secede from the union if Lincoln won election. He didn't receive a single vote in 10 different states.

You are completely making up this idea that the south seceded to preserve slavery. Lincoln was opposed to abolition of slavery. The south seceded because the federal government was infringing on state's rights, and because of northern protectionism.

You are hopelessly confused in your revisionist history that the civil war was fought over slavery.

There's no argument that the South seceded to preserve slavery. I've done this before, but I'll do it again, just for you:

Originally Posted by South Carolina Declaration of Secession

n the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.

The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.

The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.

Originally Posted by Declaration of Secession of Mississippi

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.

etc. ad infinitum.

[gblowfish]

The thing I found most interesting about this series was, except for the presidents that did next to nothing while in office -Like Fillmore or Buchanan- they all did some good things and some bad things. And the ones who did really good things all seemed to do some really bad things as well. Examples:

Jackson: Good: War hero, defeated the British in New Orleans. Bad: Responsible for the Trail of Tears for Native Americans.

Lincoln: Good: Freed the slaves, saved the Union. Bad: Suspended Writ of Habeas Corpus, permitted horrible POW conditions during the war.

Teddy Roosevelt: Good: Best conservationist prez, rebuilt American Naval strength, broke the monopolies and trusts. Bad: Overthrew Panama to build the canal. Said he'd only run for two terms, ended up running for three. Lied.

Woodrow Wilson: Good: Proposed League of Nations, which later led to the creation of the U.N. Bad: Promised America would stay out of WWI. Lied.

FDR: Good: New Deal put USA on the road to recovery from Great Depression. Wartime leader, saved the world from Nazis. Bad: Tried to pack the Supreme Court by adding more justices, rounded up Japanese Americans and put them in prison camps.

Truman: Good: Ended WWII by using atomic weapons. Marshall Plan rebuilt Europe, saved Greece and Turkey from Communism. Desegregated the military, recognized Israel, started the United Nations. Bad: Ended WWII by using atomic weapons (you can make a case either way) started the CIA, stalemate in Korea.

Ike: Good: Ended war in Korea, built interstate highway system. Bad: Used CIA to overthrow multiple governments. Let Military Industrial Complex run wild.

JFK: Good: diffused the Cuban Missile Crisis. Pushed civil rights agenda, pushed space program, started Peace Corps. Bad: Bay of Pigs, start of Vietnam situation, marital indiscretions.

LBJ: Good: Great Society program, started medicare. Bad: "Credibility Gap" of Vietnam war.

Nixon: Good: Ended Vietnam War, Started EPA, opened China to diplomacy, first SALT treaty with Russia. Bad: Watergate, enemies lists, secret war in Cambodia.

Reagan: Good: Outlasting USSR in cold war, rebuilding military. Bad: Record deficits, Iran-Contra, firing air traffic controllers, deregulating FCC.

Clinton: Good: Economic surplus. Bad: Monica Lewinsky.

Bush 41: Good: Quick end to Gulf War. Bad: "Read My Lips, No New Taxes."

[Mr. Flopnuts]

Originally Posted by Ebolapox

I don't think anybody is paying for that shit, actually. I kinda pity them if they are... hell, my parents are broke, that wouldn't be the worst of things.

You've got a better sense of humor about it than some.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by gblowfish

LBJ: Good: Great Society program, started social security. Bad: "Credibility Gap" of Vietnam war.

what???

[gblowfish]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

what???

Yes, you're right. Meant to say "Medicare." Medicare was signed into law by LBJ at the Truman Library, with HST in attendence, in 1965.
Social Security was started in 1935 by FDR.