PDA

View Full Version : Who is the greatest President in the history of the United States?



Andacanavar
June 6th, 2004, 02:44 PM
My personal vote is Abraham Lincoln. He led the country through what arguably has been it's darkest hour, and helped lead this country back to a unified state before being assassinated in 1865.

Feel free to put in a write-in candidate as well. :)

Fyshhed
June 6th, 2004, 04:15 PM
My personal vote is Abraham Lincoln. He led the country through what arguably has been it's darkest hour, and helped lead this country back to a unified state before being assassinated in 1865.

Feel free to put in a write-in candidate as well. :)

Agree with Lincoln, I think he handled the Civil War amazingly well.

Slipnish
June 6th, 2004, 06:19 PM
Kennedy.

For pushing us socially, scientifically, and martially.

Telex
June 6th, 2004, 07:52 PM
I think Kennedy is overrated.

I picked FDR, btw. Because FDR is awesome.

Apokalupsis
June 6th, 2004, 09:43 PM
I've searched the net, and I'm rather surprised. First of all, all the polls (Fox, ABC, USAToday, and much more) show Lincoln as the #1 (in all polls), Kennedy is usually following at #2.

They ALSO include G.W. Bush within the top 5 Prez's of all time. I was really surprised. I don't think he deserves to be in the top 5, but it is interesting that he even made the cut. My guess would be simply because he was in office during the time that the polls were conducted, but that's just a guess. Clinton made the cut in 2 of the polls I found.

*edit*

A Gallup Poll from 2001, shows Reagan as #1. The polling data seems to vary greatly as to the order of the top 5 are, but it usually has the same 5 Presidents. Other than this, there is no real consistency.

Iluvatar
June 7th, 2004, 03:53 PM
Go FDR! His decisive action in WWII and the Great depression were downright impressive.

Telex
June 7th, 2004, 03:57 PM
I think it's weird that Washington still has 0. Washington was the one who basically turned our Constitution into a working government, and yet Kennedy and Wilson have more votes. Wilson and Kennedy were okay Presidents, but what did they do that could compare with Washington? Everything a president has done has been based on Washington's example.

Andacanavar
June 8th, 2004, 12:00 AM
Yet you haven't voted for him.. ;)

Anywien
June 8th, 2004, 12:04 AM
Though I'm not an American, from what I know about American history, I'd have to say either Washington or Lincoln.

RTShatto
June 8th, 2004, 01:08 AM
Notice that our greatest presidents are the presidents who had to rule during a time of war (w/the exception of Regan), thats saying something about us isnt it? ;?

This reminds me of the scene in Star Wars where Luke is talking to Yoda, and Yoda says "Wars make not one great"

But do they?

Anywien
June 8th, 2004, 01:08 AM
Washington didn't rule during a war, did he? Correct me if I'm wrong though.

RTShatto
June 8th, 2004, 01:14 AM
Not necesarily, but he is most famous for his skilled/charismatic leadership during the American Revolutionary War.

So maybe I should have clarified that our greatest presidents were either great military leaders, or president during a time of war.

About John Kennedy, he served in the military if im not mistaken, and he escalated the war in Vietnam...and he almost started a war with Russia over the Cuban missile crisis.

Anywien
June 8th, 2004, 01:17 AM
Well yeah that makes a lot more sense. Not that I know of all the American presidents, or wars America has been involved in, but is George Bush the only one who is not on the list of great presidents during a war, despite the "War in Iraq"?

RTShatto
June 8th, 2004, 01:38 AM
but is George Bush the only one who is not on the list of great presidents during a war, despite the "War in Iraq"?
America is at war every 20 to 30 years or so, its almost depressing when you look at our history.

1770's (American Revolutionary War) (Continental Congress, no President yet)
1812 (self titled war :)) (President James Madison)
1840's (Mexican/American War) (President James K. Polk - "Dark Horse")
1860's (Civil War) (President Abraham Lincoln)
1890's (Spanish/American War) (President William McKinley)
1919 (WWI) (President Woodrow Wilson)
1945 (WWII) (President Franklin D. Roosevelt)
1950's (Korean War) (President Harry S. Truman)
1960's and 70's (Vietnam War) (A bunch of presidents...ill get back to you on that)
1990's (Iraq) (President George Bush)
2001+ (Afghanistan, Iraq, soon to be North KOREA!...because there crazy) (President George W. Bush)

Anywien
June 8th, 2004, 01:43 AM
...I had no idea there were that many wars, is there anything you people won't fight for?

Andacanavar
June 8th, 2004, 06:10 AM
Australians.. ;)

Anywien
June 8th, 2004, 06:14 AM
What about us? You got a problem with Australians huh?

CC
June 8th, 2004, 12:50 PM
Ole Abe but only because my first choice (TJ) isn't on the list..........:O)

KevinBrowning
June 8th, 2004, 01:13 PM
Our country has been blessed with many great leaders, including George W. Bush, who is not on the list. Washington, as the first president, set the standard of principle and integrity for the nation's highest office. Lincoln led this country through what was certainly one of its most troubled times with honesty, kindness and intelligence. And FDR lifted us out of the Great Depression with hope and ingenuity, and then through WWII with strength and resolve. From these three favorites, I picked Lincoln as our greatest president ever.

RTShatto
June 8th, 2004, 01:48 PM
I picked George Washington, come on now, that man couldnt tell a lie!

He was the one who started the whole 2 term policy for presidents that most presidents honored, he also swore under the bible at his inaguration, just imagine what it would be like if we had the facist anti 1st amendment wackos back in those days, they would have had a field day :)

Andacanavar
June 8th, 2004, 04:33 PM
Our country has been blessed with many great leaders, including George W. Bush, who is not on the list.

Surely you don't believe that clown to be anywhere near equal to the Presidents on the above list. http://smilies.jeeptalk.org/cwm/cwm/freak3.gif

Iluvatar
June 8th, 2004, 04:36 PM
You take that back Warmonger! I know a number of clowns personaly, and I know that they would be deeply offended by any comparisan with Bush! :)

Dionysus
June 8th, 2004, 04:40 PM
Clinton.

Cuz He's a pimp, ya'll!

Telex
June 8th, 2004, 04:43 PM
I picked George Washington, come on now, that man couldnt tell a lie!
Exactly. We even have legends about him. If you go to the Capital building and look up at the underside of the dome, it shows Washington sitting in the clouds with angels, like a god. The plan was that he would be buried in the Capitol, and so you could look at his grave and then look up and see him looking back down at you. But Washington wouldn't let them, which sucks. It's still a cool painting though.

Alothough it's true I voted for FDR, so my pro-Washington campaign is slightly hypocritical. Nyeh.


Our country has been blessed with many great leaders, including George W. Bush, who is not on the list
I would love to hear your justification behind that statement. What has he done that could possibly compare with these 6? (although I think there are some corrections that could be made - Jackson was awesome, way better than Wilson or Kennedy. Except for that whole Indian thing, which is certainly frowned upon now.)

CC
June 9th, 2004, 05:50 AM
I know a number of clowns personaly, and I know that they would be deeply offended by any comparisan with Bush

I AM deeply offended with such a vile comparison, being a clown myself, I can tell you, I knew Emmet Kelly, and you, Geore Dubya Bush, are no Emmet Kelly!...........:O)

ClearThinker
June 9th, 2004, 11:55 AM
Washington did basically nothing. He was a great first president because he was so popular with the people at the time. The country needed someone who would unite thenation by his very presence. He did that. But he didn't even want to be president. He was pressured to take a second term and after that said Heck No! Everyone wanted him to stay.

He was just a huge figure that everyone on all sides respected. That's about it.

Great man I'm sure, and if anyone else was prez at that time the nation might have turned out VERY differently, but not a top 5 president.

In the 20th Century I put Reagan on top for sure.

FDR has a similar (polar opposite) legacy. He did well for the war but his New Deal did more to screw this country than anything else in this century. Can't deny his legacy and impact, though. I love how when you look at the Great Depression he gets so much credit for doing somwthing about it. He did do a lot. A lot to make it worse. How do we get jobs back? Tax the hell out of companies an provide temporary work. How do fix the bank failures? Make it harder for them to diversify their holdings. Then when a war breaks out that actually ends up getting us out of the mess, we can say it was all FDR. What a joke.

LBJ might have been the worst. Man he sucked.

KevinBrowning
June 9th, 2004, 12:26 PM
What about Franklin Pierce? He should be in the top five. And we can't forget Jefferson Davis.

ClearThinker
June 9th, 2004, 12:41 PM
I was gonna say Jefferson Davis. Good call, man. If Lincoln would have just fought him man to man Davis would have kicked his wirey ass all over the place.

Apokalupsis
June 9th, 2004, 12:44 PM
Kevin,

Wuttyu? High? Why would Franklin Pierce possibly even be in the top 20, let alone top 5?

He's most known for the trying to obtain Cuba. He wanted to get Spain to sign the Ostend Manifesto which allowed the US to buy it from Spain, and if that didn't work, he was going to try to grab it by force. News of the manifesto got out, abolitionists made a fuss about it as they believed it would be another slave state. Spain got ticked off, promised to never let it go, so Pierce gave up on it.

Pierce also tried to obtain Alaska and Hawaii. He failed at that too.

Now...why would he be in the top 5 Presidents of all time?

KevinBrowning
June 9th, 2004, 12:56 PM
"After losing the Democratic nomination, he reportedly quipped "there's nothing left to do but get drunk", which he apparently did frequently, once running down a pedestrian while drunk-driving a carriage." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_Pierce.

You're right, he wasn't a great president, but he was a darned funny one.

Telex
June 9th, 2004, 01:19 PM
If you think manslaughter is funny, you communist. And George Washington did much more than just be popular - I'll get to that in a later post.

Spartacus
June 9th, 2004, 01:58 PM
Washington didn't rule during a war, did he? Correct me if I'm wrong though.

Yes and no.....

There was no US Constitution during the War. However Washington as General of the Army in fact held all the real power and had he wanted to become a dictator he very well could have as the Army was loyal to him and France would have backed him.

He is the greatest because Congress in fact designed the job of president for him....there was a movment to make Washington a monarch...but he absolutely refused to entertain the idea....He was the man who was offered a crown...and refused it....That is why he is the greatest....If it were not for him, the United States would not exist as it does today and the role of the president would not be what it is.

Spartacus
June 9th, 2004, 02:04 PM
...I had no idea there were that many wars, is there anything you people won't fight for?



Oh come on now...The Aussies have long been the queen's cannon fodder...Aussies have fought in as many wars as the US...you were there with us in Korea and Viet Nam...and you have blokes in Southwest Asis now if I am not mistaken.

Is there anything Americans won't fight for?

Tyranny and oppression....at least not since the cold war ended.

RTShatto
June 9th, 2004, 03:20 PM
I vote for Jefferson Davis as being the "GREATEST" and "WORST" president in the history of the Confederate States of America, and I bet nobody could refute me on that one :)

ClearThinker
June 10th, 2004, 07:33 AM
If you think manslaughter is funny, you communist. And George Washington did much more than just be popular - I'll get to that in a later post.

Let me pre-empt you here. Of course he did some things. He was able to put down a rebellion or two. But really nothing great. And that is my point. He really wasn't that great of a president because he didn't do much except NOT screw things up. Although you could debate that not doing anything to mess things up is great. What a coincidence! We're on a Debate forum...

SouthernDem
June 10th, 2004, 09:39 PM
FDR has a similar (polar opposite) legacy. He did well for the war but his New Deal did more to screw this country than anything else in this century. Can't deny his legacy and impact, though. I love how when you look at the Great Depression he gets so much credit for doing somwthing about it. He did do a lot. A lot to make it worse. How do we get jobs back? Tax the hell out of companies an provide temporary work. How do fix the bank failures? Make it harder for them to diversify their holdings. Then when a war breaks out that actually ends up getting us out of the mess, we can say it was all FDR. What a joke.

LBJ might have been the worst. Man he sucked.

Amen...

Yeah, I loved FDR's war-time leadership and charisma but people will not truly feel the impact of his "helpful" programs for another 20 years...lets see how much people like Socialist Security then...

FruitandNut
June 12th, 2004, 12:29 PM
By what set of criteria do we judge and select? Can this be fair, rational and free of personal narrowed bias, politics and agenda? Also do we put into the equation whether he should be assessed from the perspective of, 'a man for all seasons', or as a 'man of his time'?

Montalban
June 13th, 2004, 06:28 PM
Any ideas on who 'might' have made a good President? e.g. Bob Dole?

Dionysus
June 13th, 2004, 06:29 PM
"You know it, I know it, the American people know it."

KneeLess
June 13th, 2004, 06:32 PM
I'm actually surpised no one voted for Wilson besides me. Does anyone know how much the Fed and Federal Trade Commission effect everyday life? The reason we don't keep going into a deep recession or depression is because of those things. Banking regulations make people put their money in banks and keep the economy going.

One of the more mysterious areas of the economy is the role of the Fed. Formally known as the Federal Reserve, the Fed is the gatekeeper of the U.S. economy. It is the central bank of the United States -- it is the bank of banks and the bank of the U.S. government. The Fed regulates financial institutions, manages the nation's money and influences the economy. By raising and lowering interest rates, creating money and using a few other tricks, the Fed can either stimulate or slow down the economy. This manipulation helps maintain low inflation, high employment rates, and manufacturing output.
http://money.howstuffworks.com/fed.htm

Montalban
June 13th, 2004, 07:16 PM
I'm actually surpised no one voted for Wilson besides me. Does anyone know how much the Fed and Federal Trade Commission effect everyday life? The reason we don't keep going into a deep recession or depression is because of those things. Banking regulations make people put their money in banks and keep the economy going.

http://money.howstuffworks.com/fed.htm

Maybe Americans aren't as monetarist as you (and I) suppose.

Telex
June 13th, 2004, 08:00 PM
I think the more likely reason is that most Americans simply don't understand, or care to understand, those policies. I know I certainly don't.

Booger
June 13th, 2004, 09:09 PM
"After losing the Democratic nomination, he reportedly quipped "there's nothing left to do but get drunk", which he apparently did frequently, once running down a pedestrian while drunk-driving a carriage." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_Pierce.

You're right, he wasn't a great president, but he was a darned funny one.

LOL!! Wait a minute, ROTFLMFAO!!! Drunk driving a horse-drawn carriage. That's great. I never knew that, but I did know that you had a good sense of humor (your Texan upbringing, Christian conservative persuasion notwithstanding). Big ups, brother. :lol: Give 'em hell at the U Incarnate Word, my man! You're well ahead of the class. Trust me...

KevinBrowning
June 14th, 2004, 09:54 AM
LOL!! Wait a minute, ROTFLMFAO!!! Drunk driving a horse-drawn carriage. That's great. I never knew that, but I did know that you had a good sense of humor (your Texan upbringing, Christian conservative persuasion notwithstanding). Big ups, brother. :lol: Give 'em hell at the U Incarnate Word, my man! You're well ahead of the class. Trust me...
I thought it was hilarious too. I appreciate your compliments. I respect your debating skills and friendly personality, regardless of our disagreeing on just about everything. ;)

Montalban
June 16th, 2004, 01:30 AM
LOL!! Wait a minute, ROTFLMFAO!!! Drunk driving a horse-drawn carriage. That's great. I never knew that, but I did know that you had a good sense of humor (your Texan upbringing, Christian conservative persuasion notwithstanding). Big ups, brother. :lol: Give 'em hell at the U Incarnate Word, my man! You're well ahead of the class. Trust me...


What if the horse was drunk?

Anywien
June 18th, 2004, 02:15 AM
What if Franklin got the horse drunk?

Apokalupsis
June 18th, 2004, 06:26 AM
oh, don't forget about that goat...such a cute goat...

..../looks around

Sorry, wrong community...

Anywien
June 19th, 2004, 05:25 AM
Goat? I'm confused...

FruitandNut
June 22nd, 2004, 03:02 AM
I think 'we' are going off the original thread a touch - what do you think?

Just who is the best president must be subjective and open to the vagaries of personal mood, perception and agenda of the moment.

Sam Adams
March 4th, 2005, 09:38 AM
I don't believe Wilson ended child labor. It ended in 1933-34 during Roosevelt's New Deal with the enactment of the National Industrial Recovery Act which spawned the NRA (National Recovery Administration). The NRA under eventually put an end to child labor and sweatshops.

Plus, where's Truman? You left the best one out, lol

FruitandNut
March 4th, 2005, 10:04 AM
It could be argued that Coolidge and Hoover's calling in of Weimar Republic debt during the Wall Street Crash and Depression period was the 'last straw' that led to German hyper-inflation, that in turn gave Hitler the opportunity to gain power.

I rated Kennedy, but he was assassinated before he had a full chance at office.

Washington, Lincoln and Roosevelt were great achievers also. Given times and circumstances it is a difficult decision to choose between them.

KevinBrowning
March 4th, 2005, 11:32 AM
It could be argued that Coolidge and Hoover's calling in of Weimar Republic debt during the Wall Street Crash and Depression period was the 'last straw' that led to German hyper-inflation, that in turn gave Hitler the opportunity to gain power.

I rated Kennedy, but he was assassinated before he had a full chance at office.

Washington, Lincoln and Roosevelt were great achievers also. Given times and circumstances it is a difficult decision to choose between them.

How is Kennedy better than Washington, Lincoln and FDR? Aside from the Bay of Pigs scare, I don't think his accomplishments are nearly up there with setting a smart and honorable president precedent for the country, ending slavery and saving the union, and carrying the nation through the Great Depression and WWII.

FruitandNut
March 4th, 2005, 01:11 PM
J.F.K. represented for many the hope and optimism of youth. He presided over a time of very great risk for the 'civilised world'. The Warsaw Pact was testing very hard America's resolve and that of her allies. He and his brother Robert squared up to both 'organised crime' and the neuroticism and 'megalomania' of J. Edgar H himself. -Both of them paid the price.

Valium
March 4th, 2005, 02:59 PM
George Washington (1st President, helped create the nation)
I think that says it all. Not to mention the whole leading a constantly losing, demoralized army to victory. Oh ya, and he also set up precedents that we still use to this day: State of the Union, 4-year terms, two term limit(which was so good we made it a law), Instituted the Presidental cabinet, and he is one of the few politicians in history to turn down the opportunity to become King. Woodrow Wilson doesn't deserve to be on the same list, unless you're talking about last names that begin with W, and then just barely.

ophelia
March 4th, 2005, 03:37 PM
The Imperial President - Andrew Jackson.

KevinBrowning
March 4th, 2005, 07:24 PM
The Imperial President - Andrew Jackson.

Heh, I hope you're joking. This is the guy who just ignored one of the three theoretically equal branches of the government, that is the judicial, and sent the Indians off to their deaths on the Trail of Tears because the "savages" obviously didn't deserve to share the land with us.

ophelia
March 4th, 2005, 08:05 PM
Actually, I voted for Washington.

FDR started too many angecies.

Mr. Hyde
March 4th, 2005, 08:10 PM
C'mon people, Two Votes for Woodrow Wilson? Me and that other person? He was awesome with his Fourteen Points and all that. I think that was him anyways.

Valium
March 4th, 2005, 10:24 PM
C'mon people, Two Votes for Woodrow Wilson? Me and that other person? He was awesome with his Fourteen Points and all that. I think that was him anyways. You know you are talking about the man that Thoedore Roosevelt called a "Byzantine logothete"? He was then elected for his second term using the slogan "he kept us out of war." Guess what happened on April 6, 1917. Yes, the 14 points thing was him, for all the good it did. The fourteen points and the treaty he negotaited where so ineffective that we had to have another war just to fix the effects.

EscraymCroix
March 5th, 2005, 01:16 PM
No Thomas Jefferson?

Snoop
March 6th, 2005, 03:59 PM
Man this is an old thread. I vote for GW Bush - he has to be the greatest at something.

SouthernDem
March 6th, 2005, 04:45 PM
WHAT? okay, I posted on this a long time ago, about FDR's leadership, But I have 3 beefs with this poll:

1.) No Jefferson? Huh? Oh, thats right, states rights are baaaaaaaaaaaaaaad

2.) Lincoln? I mean, good guy....but lets forget the fact that slavery was a political tactic and haebus courpus didn't matter....Its only a right

3.) No Teddy? Ted is probably my favorite president (Him or Reagan) Because of his ability to
a) Conserve a good chunk of the glourious lands of the national part b) Non-violently let the world know that the US was prepared for a global conflict c) Get shot in mid speech and having the b*lls to finish it.

KevinBrowning
March 6th, 2005, 09:27 PM
2.) Lincoln? I mean, good guy....but lets forget the fact that slavery was a political tactic and haebus courpus didn't matter....Its only a right

Slavery is what the Civil War was fought over (don't give me any "states' rights" bollocks, people, slavery was the states' rights issue. Tariffs had a role, but much less important). However, the Emancipation Proclamation is not the main reason Lincoln was the greatest president. The reason is that he had the skill and courage to make complex and controversial decisions that could in the short term save our Union, and in the long term do what he knew was right. There would be no United States as we know it without Lincoln. He basically saved the presidency, with his sincere and thoughtful approach. The list of presidents after the first few and before Lincoln is less than impressive, to understate it.

Mr. Hyde
March 6th, 2005, 09:35 PM
No Thomas Jefferson?
Thomas Jefferson was never a president. :)

FruitandNut
March 6th, 2005, 09:39 PM
Slavery is what the Civil War was fought over (don't give me any "states' rights" bollocks, people, slavery was the states' rights issue.

Lincoln was heard (and reported) to have said that if being pro-slavery would win him the war, then he would be pro-slavery.

"My paramount objective is to save the Union, and is not either to save or 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 do it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that".

So much for Lincoln being equated with William Wilberforce by some of his 'champions' - when it comes to slavery he was a political pragmatist.

Fyshhed
March 6th, 2005, 09:50 PM
Lincoln was heard (and reported) to have said that if being pro-slavery would win him the war, then he would be pro-slavery.
Winning the war comes first. I'm sure he would have flip-flopped like any liberal and gone back on his word sooner or later.

;)

CliveStaples
March 6th, 2005, 10:11 PM
Lincoln was also an abolitionist before he was a president.

Too bad Hamilton wasn't a president; I'd be tempted to vote for him.

FruitandNut
March 6th, 2005, 10:11 PM
Not all liberals flip flop - likewise not all conservatives stick to their 'guns'.
One example that springs to mind is, "this lady is not for turning" acolyte of Hayek New Right Maggie Thatcher. She was prone to fits of 'pragmatism' from time to time. The introduction of a 'Poll Tax' was a hobby horse of her's that she forced through despite wiser council warning against. She then faced a humiliating 'climb down', (or could it just be that she might have actually learned something!!!!!!!?)

Ibelsd
March 7th, 2005, 08:31 AM
This is a bogus poll. I don't see James K. Polk listed. Regarded by historians as one of the greatest Presidents ever, it would be remiss to not even include his name. How the hell does JFK get included. Maybe, if you asked who had the most potential, it would be fair to include him. Otherwise, his accomplishments as a President were zero. Nada.

Ibelsd
March 7th, 2005, 08:32 AM
Oh and Jesus Christ. I just noticed Woodrow Wilson was included. For god sakes. Who wrote this list. Helped to end child labor? That is about as assinine as claiming that Al Gore invented the internet.

Pibs
March 9th, 2005, 11:09 AM
Erm, where's Grover Cleveland?

Only one you ever had that actually followed the constitution..


P.

Duo
March 10th, 2005, 10:03 PM
Oh and Jesus Christ. I just noticed Woodrow Wilson was included. For god sakes. Who wrote this list. Helped to end child labor? That is about as assinine as claiming that Al Gore invented the internet.

Gore never claimed to have invented the internet. All he said was just a very self serving statement"
During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.htm

As for the president, one has to realize it's all subjective. It's impossible to objectively compare the era, the problem, the critera and the person in a means that will give you who the greatest president was.

KevinBrowning
March 10th, 2005, 10:24 PM
Thomas Jefferson was never a president. :)

"Thomas Jefferson (April 13, 1743–July 4, 1826) was the third (1801–1809) President of the United States and an American statesman, ambassador to France, political philosopher, revolutionary, agriculturalist, horticulturist, land owner, architect, archaeologist, and author.

Jefferson was, many historians believe, among the most brilliant men ever to occupy the Presidency. President John F. Kennedy welcomed 49 Nobel Prize winners to the White House in 1962, saying, "I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered at the White House, with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone." - Wikipedia.

I hope you were joking.

Harrison383
March 29th, 2005, 07:03 AM
I don't understand why George Washington was considered a good president. Or a good General.

He was a mediocre General at best. Something like 5-4....ironic that the greatest General the colonies had before the Revolutionary War was Benedict Arnold.

G.W. in my opinion wasn't a good president because he really didn't have the presidential powers that commanders-in-chief have today. He set up the cabinet, sure, but he really didn't have the political reach and power that FDR, JFK, Reagan all had. That's not to say he was a bad guy, it's just that I don't see why he should be considered the greatest.

He wasn't a diplomat (3-month travel time prevented that) so he didn't have to consider instantaneous foreign opinion.

He only had a collection of former colonies that are so used to autonomous rule that he really had to intervene only minimally. (This is also one of the reasons why the Articles of Confederation fell through)

He only set up the 2-year term because he just left. And everyone didn't want to seem to trample his feet, so they made it a custom. Then FDR had 3 terms, so they made it a law.

I was torn between Abraham Lincoln and JFK. I chose the latter because Abe had Johnson as Veep, and that guy was a nutjob.

And the civil war was a great stride toward equal rights.....except it only got part-way. It managed to get the law written, but not enforced. JFK led the progressive charge towards getting it indoctrined in our culture as a nation.

Ibelsd
March 29th, 2005, 11:41 AM
I don't understand why George Washington was considered a good president. Or a good General.

He was a mediocre General at best. Something like 5-4....ironic that the greatest General the colonies had before the Revolutionary War was Benedict Arnold.

G.W. in my opinion wasn't a good president because he really didn't have the presidential powers that commanders-in-chief have today. He set up the cabinet, sure, but he really didn't have the political reach and power that FDR, JFK, Reagan all had. That's not to say he was a bad guy, it's just that I don't see why he should be considered the greatest.

He wasn't a diplomat (3-month travel time prevented that) so he didn't have to consider instantaneous foreign opinion.

He only had a collection of former colonies that are so used to autonomous rule that he really had to intervene only minimally. (This is also one of the reasons why the Articles of Confederation fell through)

He only set up the 2-year term because he just left. And everyone didn't want to seem to trample his feet, so they made it a custom. Then FDR had 3 terms, so they made it a law.

I was torn between Abraham Lincoln and JFK. I chose the latter because Abe had Johnson as Veep, and that guy was a nutjob.

And the civil war was a great stride toward equal rights.....except it only got part-way. It managed to get the law written, but not enforced. JFK led the progressive charge towards getting it indoctrined in our culture as a nation.

Let me get this right. You minimize the importance of Washington as a leader during a time in which the country was just forming, and consider our greatest president as a guy who died in office before signing a single bill into law. That is sweeeeeet!

Pibs
March 29th, 2005, 12:46 PM
"G.W. in my opinion wasn't a good president because he really didn't have the presidential powers that commanders-in-chief have today"


Greatest is defined by grasping the most power? Heck, on that score Bush is right up there..



P.

Rogue1987
March 29th, 2005, 04:26 PM
Abraham Lincoln is the best, but the second-best in my opinion isn't even on this list. Theodore Roosevelt, people. Established national parks, bought the rights to the Panama Canal, youngest President ever (42-years-old when he entered office), and he was really popular while in office. Hell, he even got a Nobel Peace Prize. You can't do much better than that, so lets hear it for Teddy!

PerVirtuous
March 29th, 2005, 09:29 PM
Kind of an impossible task. I don't know who was the greatest as President, however, I'd like to cast a vote that Washington was the greatest man of the bunch. His resignation of his commission after winning the Revolutionary war is a defining moment in the history of the world. He could have been king. How many men would turn down being king? This selfless act is the self-sacrifice which has been the foundation of our entire culture, not just our government. The King of France at the time refused to believe the news of Washington's resignation saying that no man was that great. You can only have a government of the people if somebody gives it to them. G.W. did that. Most of the other presidents have been trying their best to take it back.

Andacanavar
April 4th, 2005, 09:59 AM
Well, since I created the poll maybe I should have some answers. :D

I should of put Teddy on there, it slipped my mind and for that I apologize. As far as the others, well, let's face it, GW and Linc are on it automatically, and would be on any presidential greatness poll. Wilson and FDR managed the country during the two biggest wars of humankind, JFK for some reason or another is always touted up there, and Reagan was the best of my lifetime.

Fair enough? :p

ryancarter
April 8th, 2005, 11:53 AM
FDR
He is the greatest president because of the New Deal, Social Security, and his mulilateral approach to international relations.

Mr. Hyde
April 8th, 2005, 11:59 AM
"Thomas Jefferson (April 13, 1743–July 4, 1826) was the third (1801–1809) President of the United States and an American statesman, ambassador to France, political philosopher, revolutionary, agriculturalist, horticulturist, land owner, architect, archaeologist, and author.

Jefferson was, many historians believe, among the most brilliant men ever to occupy the Presidency. President John F. Kennedy welcomed 49 Nobel Prize winners to the White House in 1962, saying, "I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered at the White House, with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone." - Wikipedia.

I hope you were joking.
No, sadly I wasn't joking. Thanks for the information though. Now I know.

Snoop
April 8th, 2005, 12:06 PM
I just broke the tie in the poll :)

Pibs
April 9th, 2005, 07:03 PM
I must admit, reading through all the answers, I'm just amazed at how utterly different my views are to most of you lot.

Presidents judged as good because they dragged you into war? Because they abolished real money and introduced the stealth tax of inflation? Because they introduced socialism? Because they grasped for power and over-rode the constitution? Because they delayed economic recovery with fiscal stupidity? Because they killed hundreds of thousands of your own people rather than let them exercise their constitutional right to secede?

As I pointed out, the only president you've ever had who actually followed the American Constitution, who wouldn't sign anything he hadn't read, who wouldn't sign anything unconstitutional, who did absolutely nothing wrong and refused to do favors for "contributions" was Cleveland. It's the very fact he was a decent president is probably why, at a guess, at least 80% of you have never even heard of him?

With the exception of Washington you've compiled a list of the worst presidents you've ever had! Awesome.

It cannot be denied, Americans are utterly and completely barmy.


P.

ShadowKnight
April 9th, 2005, 09:31 PM
I must admit, reading through all the answers, I'm just amazed at how utterly different my views are to most of you lot.

Presidents judged as good because they dragged you into war? Because they abolished real money and introduced the stealth tax of inflation? Because they introduced socialism? Because they grasped for power and over-rode the constitution? Because they delayed economic recovery with fiscal stupidity? Because they killed hundreds of thousands of your own people rather than let them exercise their constitutional right to secede?

As I pointed out, the only president you've ever had who actually followed the American Constitution, who wouldn't sign anything he hadn't read, who wouldn't sign anything unconstitutional, who did absolutely nothing wrong and refused to do favors for "contributions" was Cleveland. It's the very fact he was a decent president is probably why, at a guess, at least 80% of you have never even heard of him?

With the exception of Washington you've compiled a list of the worst presidents you've ever had! Awesome.

It cannot be denied, Americans are utterly and completely barmy.


P.

*sigh*

You are starting to get a bit annoying (oh no! Ad HOM!). You don't seem to understand America at all, you are one of those people that see America as a great evil, and turn a blind eye to the great things we've done. You criticize us because you think we are war-mongers and just have the direct intention of destroying the world, which is a load of moose piss.

We liberate a whole bunch of captive people from Iraq, and you claim what we did was completely treacherous, ignoring the fact that we are giving a voice to a people that had no voice and lived under complete terror. So, now we have a president who an "international terrorist" for setting people free, how damn ironic. Yeah, america is the great evil WoOoOoOooOoOooo...., we are going to destroy the whole world, hahaha, right. You know what, I just like the idea of having Saddam Hussein in power, that man, I have to hand it to him, a great man of peace and negotiation, yep.

Pibs
April 10th, 2005, 09:09 AM
Sure, ignore everything in my post.

See, I DO respect what America was founded on, it's actual founders, the Constitution and free-trade, no entanglements ethos.

But your last 5 or so presidents have refelcted the rest of your country - rapidly downhill.

How on EARTH could anyone put Wilson? I mean, Wilson!?

He was a complete :mad:


Lincoln, utter swine as he was, I can understand due to the massive propaganda you peeps are subjected to but jeepers, you have a weird idea of a good president.

The WHOLE POINT of your constitution, different branches of government and so on are to protect the rights of the people, to avoid war and to create prosperity with low taxation.

You lot seem positively enthusiastic about wrecking all that as much as possible? From beacon to the world to being voted the greatest threat to world peace in two centuries, most of it in the last one. These are your "greats"?

Barmy.


P.

Mr. Hyde
April 10th, 2005, 09:30 AM
How on EARTH could anyone put Wilson? I mean, Wilson!?

He was a complete :mad:
What's wrong with Wilson?

Pibs
April 10th, 2005, 02:04 PM
http://www.lewrockwell.com/bonner/bonner87.html


Read. Every. Single. Word.



P.

Mr. Hyde
April 10th, 2005, 02:23 PM
http://www.lewrockwell.com/bonner/bonner87.html


Read. Every. Single. Word.



P.
So, rockwell paints him up to look and sound like a twenties version of Bush. But I also note that he claims Che and Lenin were bad guys. So, I'm inclined to disagree a little.

KevinBrowning
April 10th, 2005, 08:58 PM
So, rockwell paints him up to look and sound like a twenties version of Bush. But I also note that he claims Che and Lenin were bad guys. So, I'm inclined to disagree a little.

Che? As in Guevara? Actually, yes, he WAS a "bad guy," if one considers communist guerrilla revolutionary fighters to be (in general) "bad guys." Shh, don't tell that to the kids who think "that Mexican guy with the hair" looks cool on their T-shirts.

Telex
April 10th, 2005, 09:03 PM
So he's bad because he was a communist?

Same with Lenin?

CliveStaples
April 10th, 2005, 09:09 PM
Digression:



Che? As in Guevara? Actually, yes, he WAS a "bad guy," if one considers communist guerrilla revolutionary fighters to be (in general) "bad guys." Shh, don't tell that to the kids who think "that Mexican guy with the hair" looks cool on their T-shirts.


Communist guerrilla revolutionary fighters? Don't be so kind. The good doctor Che was a murderer.


"

The fog of time and the strength of anti-anti-Communism have obscured the real Che. Who was he? He was an Argentinian revolutionary who served as Castro's primary thug. He was especially infamous for presiding over summary executions at La Cabaña, the fortress that was his abattoir. He liked to administer the coup de grâce, the bullet to the back of the neck. And he loved to parade people past El Paredón, the reddened wall against which so many innocents were killed. Furthermore, he established the labor-camp system in which countless citizens — dissidents, democrats, artists, homosexuals — would suffer and die. This is the Cuban gulag. A Cuban-American writer, Humberto Fontova, described Guevara as "a combination of Beria and Himmler." Anthony Daniels once quipped, "The difference between [Guevara] and Pol Pot was that [the former] never studied in Paris."

"

http://www.nationalreview.com/nordlinger/nordlinger200501050715.asp


And Hyde? Hate to disappoint you on your notion of Saint Lenin, but he was a tyrant, too.

"

In some scholarly circles in the West, Stalin was seen as an "aberration," a tyrant who perverted Lenin's intentions at the end of Lenin's life. But as more and more evidence of Lenin's cruelty emerged from the archives, that notion of the "good Lenin" and the "bad Stalin" became an academic joke. Very few of Stalin's policies were without roots in Leninism: it was Lenin who built the first camps; Lenin who set off artificial famine as a political weapon; Lenin who disbanded the last vestige of democratic government, the Constituent Assembly, and devised the Communist Party as the apex of a totalitarian structure; Lenin who first waged war on the intelligentsia and on religious believers, wiping out any traces of civil liberty and a free press.

"

http://www.rjgeib.com/thoughts/zhivago/lenin.html



But I suppose that I need to "revise" my understanding of history, no?

Pibs
April 11th, 2005, 05:00 AM
Wasn't Rockwell himself, was Bill Bonner, though also an economist.

Yes, all the people mentioned were bad guys, not necessarily because they were communist (that simply makes them misguided) but because they were bad.

Likewise being an American president didn't stop Wilson from being a first class :mad:



W.

Ibelsd
April 11th, 2005, 11:35 AM
FDR
He is the greatest president because of the New Deal, Social Security, and his mulilateral approach to international relations.

Um.... You're kidding right? The man who single-handedly brought us federal socialism is your greatest president. I am not even sure what you mean by his multilateral approach.

Rogue1987
April 12th, 2005, 03:44 PM
Hey, FDR was the right man for the job at precisely the right time. America needed SOMETHING to get itself back on its feet. And then he helped to forge the alliances that would ultimately be the end of Hitler's march across the world.

KevinBrowning
April 12th, 2005, 04:07 PM
Um.... You're kidding right? The man who single-handedly brought us federal socialism is your greatest president. I am not even sure what you mean by his multilateral approach.

I'm a fairly hardcore "neo-con" according to some here, and I greatly admire FDR. So did most of the country, hence four elections. His New Deal was nothing short of brilliant (Usually, at least. The CCC was a heck of a lot better than that one acronym that caused all those farm products to be wasted in order to cause inflation). Only WWII would completely reverse the Depression, but Roosevelt did much to alleviate it.

Ibelsd
April 12th, 2005, 04:50 PM
I'm a fairly hardcore "neo-con" according to some here, and I greatly admire FDR. So did most of the country, hence four elections. His New Deal was nothing short of brilliant (Usually, at least. The CCC was a heck of a lot better than that one acronym that caused all those farm products to be wasted in order to cause inflation). Only WWII would completely reverse the Depression, but Roosevelt did much to alleviate it.

I will address you and Rogue together. Kevin, I think I have fairly debunked the myth that you are a conservative in any other arena outside your desire to legislate morality. Let's get to the meat of the issue though.

Myth 1: The New Deal was the right thing to get America back on its feet.
In truth, the New Deal legislation wasn't passed until America was coming out of the depression. Note that the Depression lasted from 1929 until 1933. Most of FDR's legislation passed circa 1933 and later. The first phase of the New Deal went from 1933-1935. You do the math.

Myth 2: FDR won four elections because he was beloved and did a great job as President.
First, much of his success comes from his ability to utilize the press which often covered for him. The people didn't even know he was crippled. Not that his being crippled matters, but it does show the length the press went to protect him.

Myth 3: He was good for the times.
This may be the most blasephemous comment of them all (not made by anyone here in particular, but heard plenty nonetheless). He passed legislation which clearly violated the Constitution. When his legislation was struck down, he attempted to stack the courts. I don't believe, that alienatiing our basic freedoms and rights is ever a good thing. While he may have been simply trying to out-Hoover, Hoover, he went too far and corrupted the Constitution forevermore.

In short, he is hardly to be considered a good president. We can address WWII some other time. I think in this arena you will find, for all his supposed strength, he was unable to get the American people to accept U.S. intervention until we were physically attacked. Hardly the work of a good leader.

Meng Bomin
April 12th, 2005, 07:07 PM
Myth 1: The New Deal was the right thing to get America back on its feet.
In truth, the New Deal legislation wasn't passed until America was coming out of the depression. Note that the Depression lasted from 1929 until 1933. Most of FDR's legislation passed circa 1933 and later. The first phase of the New Deal went from 1933-1935. You do the math.
Well, you are right in that the New Deal did little to boost the American economy. However, you are incorrect in giveing the Depression an ending point at 1933. America's economy did not fully recover until World War II. While the economy was improving, there were still dips and it still wasn't anything near the "Roaring Twenties". The real success against the depression was military buildup.

Myth 2: FDR won four elections because he was beloved and did a great job as President.
First, much of his success comes from his ability to utilize the press which often covered for him. The people didn't even know he was crippled. Not that his being crippled matters, but it does show the length the press went to protect him.
You are also right in this area. He did a very good job disguising the fact that he was paralysed. He had his podium bolted to the floor and he held on to it to give himself an appearance of standing up. As well, he used his son to give the illusion that he could walk. He was a very crafty politician.

Myth 3: He was good for the times.
This may be the most blasephemous comment of them all (not made by anyone here in particular, but heard plenty nonetheless). He passed legislation which clearly violated the Constitution. When his legislation was struck down, he attempted to stack the courts. I don't believe, that alienatiing our basic freedoms and rights is ever a good thing. While he may have been simply trying to out-Hoover, Hoover, he went too far and corrupted the Constitution forevermore.
Indeed, I do not approve of his measures to add more judges to the Supreme Court so he could pass some of his New Deal programs. However, he did handle the economy a bit better than Hoover did. You will find that under times of stress, leaders tend to bend and break the rules more often. For instance, Lincoln had Confederate sympathizers in Maryland arrested and held without trial or charge. Of course, if you look at this map, you may be able to tell why:
http://www.cnn.com/US/9904/03/us.kosovo.03/washington.d.c.map.jpg

sbgtfJC
April 12th, 2005, 07:17 PM
Something that bugs me about FDR is that he sent the Japanese Americans to concentration camps. That isn't right.

Pibs
April 13th, 2005, 04:37 AM
"Well, you are right in that the New Deal did little to boost the American economy."

If.. whooa! I nearly attacked that point till I spotted "little". I'll still attack it though but with less venom :)

It damaged the economy and slowed down the natural recovery, it didn't "help" in the slightest. Not even a little bit.



"However, you are incorrect in giveing the Depression an ending point at 1933. America's economy did not fully recover until World War II". The real success against the depression was military buildup."

Would you care to explain exactly how a military buildup is a help to the economy?

While one could make a case for the build-up being necessary to defend the stars an stripes from Hitler's unplanned invasion or whatever, all too often I see this economic fallacy. First let's define what is meant by "the economy". While some would take a different view I think most would agree the general idea of it is to maintain or hopefully improve the living conditions and purchasing power of the people, true?

OK, not a definition of THE economy, but what is generally aimed AT by economists."The economy" is shorthand for the human condition, from a purchasing power and lifestyle point of view of a specific nation.

I think we can dismiss such issues as how the build-up was needed or else you'd all be talking Japanese and eating sushi or whatever, by asking if the build-up would have helped the economy in the event you LOST the war? So aside from the issues of engaging in and winning the war, does a military build-up help the human condition judged via lifestyle and purchasing power?

In a major war materials are scarce, often officially rationed or even banned from public use. Major industrial manufacturers shift from consumer goodies to killing implements and associated gumpth, huge chunks of the productive workforce are engaged in non-productive labor (I repeat, I'm excluding the benefits of winning here).

To finance it all the government whips up patriotic fever and gets people to buy "war bonds", which have a notoriously low or negative redemption.

In short, this is the scenario:

The labor force is reduced.

Facilities and plant are diverted from productive use.

Capital is diverted into non-productive use.

Materials and commodities are scarce and overly expensive. Leading to:

Consumers goods are scarce and overly expensive.


The net result of the above is huge pent up demand without the means to meet such demand, a generally lower standard of living and a serious dent in future productivity, the "build-up" itself delaying the normal progressive building up of a normal economy.

Plus much of that which is produced, and indeed much of the previously or potentially productive workforce, is destroyed in the event of war but that's not the build-up per se.

Only overly patriotic schooling could result in people, in full seriousness, believing that such a diversion from improving the human condition resulted in a boost to it.

What happened was that after the war the pent-up demand was released, a sudden influx of productive workers returned and the economy did its best to catch up on all the losses incurred, creating a "Wow, war is good for the economy!" fallacy.

The "boost" was a heavily distorted and out-of-sync economy springing back into its normal balance AFTER the war.

The build-up, while it may have created "jobs" for those left behind, was financed with heavy inflation (which hurts everyone but mainly the poor) and "bonds" which a 5 year old would have the sense not to buy at any other time.

As I say, if you'd lost the war, would it have been a boost? Obviously not. Someone who was about to buy a washing machine (or whatever) but then found they could not because steel and copper were scarce and the few machines available were extremely expensive, while their savings were reducing in value almost as fast as they could save up for one, cannot possibly be considered to be living in a better economy than the one just before.

Hope that helps..


P.

KevinBrowning
April 13th, 2005, 12:15 PM
I will address you and Rogue together. Kevin, I think I have fairly debunked the myth that you are a conservative in any other arena outside your desire to legislate morality. Let's get to the meat of the issue though.

Oh, forgive me. I forgot that you know my personal political inclinations better than I do.


Myth 1: The New Deal was the right thing to get America back on its feet.
In truth, the New Deal legislation wasn't passed until America was coming out of the depression. Note that the Depression lasted from 1929 until 1933. Most of FDR's legislation passed circa 1933 and later. The first phase of the New Deal went from 1933-1935. You do the math.

Stop right there. 1933? L. O. L. You need to brush up on your history a bit. The Great Depression lasted from the stock market crash of 1929 until the U.S. entered WWII in 1941. In other words, all of the 1930s and more. Address this error, and I'll respond to the rest.

Ibelsd
April 13th, 2005, 02:40 PM
Oh, forgive me. I forgot that you know my personal political inclinations better than I do.



Stop right there. 1933? L. O. L. You need to brush up on your history a bit. The Great Depression lasted from the stock market crash of 1929 until the U.S. entered WWII in 1941. In other words, all of the 1930s and more. Address this error, and I'll respond to the rest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression
Note the dates Kev. Starting around 1933, the U.S. began to recover, albeit slowly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_depression
The definition of a depression requires that the economy is in a downturn. Beginning in 1933, the economy "bottomed out" and began to improve. Hence, we can say, that the Great Depression ended in 1933 although full economic recovery didn't occur until much later.

I suggest that before you make ad-hom attacks ("you need to brush up on your history a bit") you do a bit more research into your own positions. It is much better to remain quiet and let people think you are a fool, rather than open your mouth and remove all doubt.

KevinBrowning
April 13th, 2005, 04:34 PM
I suggest that before you make ad-hom attacks ("you need to brush up on your history a bit") you do a bit more research into your own positions. It is much better to remain quiet and let people think you are a fool, rather than open your mouth and remove all doubt.

Oh, a thousand pardons. I guess your repeated comments that I'm not a "real conservative" don't count as ad homs, then. And just because the economy started to slowly improve after 1933, doesn't mean it wasn't still in a depression. It was, and a very severe one at that. If it wasn't for WWII, we would have never fully recovered, as far as we can tell. FDR tried just about everything short of making us the American Socialist People's Republic, and it didn't come close to restoring 1920s prosperity.

Pibs
April 13th, 2005, 05:26 PM
"FDR tried just about everything short of making us the American Socialist People's Republic, and it didn't come close to restoring 1920s prosperity"

No, it held you back.

Hey, jus ignore my previous post, it was kinnda boring n stuff an made you look silly :)



P.

Ibelsd
April 14th, 2005, 01:44 PM
And just because the economy started to slowly improve after 1933, doesn't mean it wasn't still in a depression. It was, and a very severe one at that.
This is exactly what constituted the end of the depression. I gave the definition of depression earlier. You didn't rebut the definition. As such, you really don't have an argument.



Only WWII would completely reverse the Depression, but Roosevelt did much to alleviate it.

If it wasn't for WWII, we would have never fully recovered, as far as we can tell. FDR tried just about everything short of making us the American Socialist People's Republic, and it didn't come close to restoring 1920s prosperity.


Which one is it Kev? Did he help alleviate the depression or did he just do lots of sutff which didn't do much? Trying to do lots of stuff does not mean someone is successful. I never claimed FDR didn't attempt to do things. I simply noted that the things he attempted were failures and, in many instances, unconstitutional. You have yet to actually rebut the meat of my argument. Namely, thrashing the constitution should not bring one accolades. Finally, the depression ended, as I noted above, in 1933. WWII helped the U.S. in its recovery, not in ending the depression itself. As such, reversal is a bit of a misnomer.



Oh, a thousand pardons. I guess your repeated comments that I'm not a "real conservative" don't count as ad homs
Actually it isn't. You made an argument which was based on your self-proclaimed established position as a "neo-con". I was rebutting that statement. If I had proclaimed myself a master historian of WWII, and you were able to rebut this, doing so would not be an ad-hom attack. Of course, I never claimed to be a WWII historian and your comment was not in rebuttal to anything claimed by myself. As such, it is an ad-hom statement, or a statement intended to direct a debate off-topic.

Abstrakt
April 16th, 2005, 03:31 PM
Had to go with Washington. Considered Lincoln.

Washington was statesman, general, patriot and beloved of people that he put threw hell.
That alone would tempt me. Coupled with his unwillingness to be king, despot, leader for life he gets my vote.

Lincoln was brave and a leader. Got the miserable job done when many others couldn't.

Woodrow Wilson's inability to get the League through the Congress disqualifies him.

FDR's willingness to do 4 terms disqualifies him.

Kennedy was a TV personality that through the tragedy of his assassination got on the list at all.

Reagan also the showman knew how to play the game.

Montalban
April 26th, 2005, 03:47 AM
How come Tilden never became President (Rutherford Hayes did), when Tilden got more votes?

Pibs
April 26th, 2005, 07:56 AM
Dunno bout Tildy but on the subject of Wilson again..


The passage of time permits historians to be truthful in their assessments of presidents. Abe Lincoln, a Republican Party icon since 1865, was exposed in the 21st century as America’s first tyrant by Thomas DiLorenzo. Woodrow Wilson, a Democratic icon since the early 20th century, has now been knocked off his pedestal by Jim Powell in Wilson’s War: How Woodrow Wilson’s Great Blunder Led to Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, and World War II (Crown Forum, 2005).

Declaring Wilson to be "the worst president in American history," Powell makes a strong case that the rise of the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were unintended consequences of Wilson’s arrogance.

Powell argues that the war, which began in 1914, was stalemated by 1917 and would have ended in a compromise peace. Wilson’s entry into the war won the war for Britain and France and allowed the disastrously vindictive Versailles Treaty to be imposed on Germany. The British economist, John Maynard Keynes, knew the treaty was unrealistic, as did Count von Brockdorff-Rantzau, the leader of the German Peace Delegation.

The Germans were aghast at "the victorious violence of our enemies." The Count told French President Georges Clemenceau that "the exactions of this treaty are more than the German people can bear." The treaty required massive losses of German territory: Part of East Prussia ("amputated from the body of the State, condemned to a lingering death, and robbed of its northern portion, including Memel") and most of West Prussia, Danzig, Pomerania, Upper Silesia, the Saar, the overseas German colonies, plus occupation of Rhenish territory for 15 years.

On top of the dissolution of the German state was added confiscation of all German assets abroad, the German merchant fleet, and reparation payments that would condemn the German people "to perpetual slave labor."

Powell shows how this insane treaty brought Hitler to power and how Wilson’s bribe to the Russian government to continue in the war produced the Bolshevik Revolution, Stalin, and the Cold War. One hundred million deaths resulted from Wilson’s decision to turn the stalemated European conflict into World War I.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts100.html



P.