# ranking US Presidents



## Artevelde (Apr 12, 2012)

My personal ranking of US Presidents. I didn't include any Presidents who were in office less than 20 years ago (too early to judge) and I also left out William Henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor and James Garfield because they served for too brief a period to judge.

Abraham Lincoln
Franklin D. Roosevelt
George Washington
Thomas Jefferson
Theodore Roosevelt
Ronald Reagan
Lyndon B. Johnson
James Knox Polk
Harry Truman
William McKinley
James Monroe
John Adams
Woodrow Wilson
Dwight Eisenhower
William Howard Taft
Grover Cleveland
Calvin Coolidge
James Madison
John Quincy Adams
Rutherford B. Hayes
Andrew Johnson
Andrew Jackson
Chester Alan Arthur
Benjamin Harrison
Herbert Hoover
Ulysses S. Grant
Martin Van Buren
John Tyler
Franklin Pierce
John F. Kennedy
Richard Nixon
Gerald Ford
Jimmy Carter
Warren Gamaliel Harding
Millard Fillmore
James Buchanan


----------



## Unkotare (Apr 12, 2012)

FDR should be dead last on that list.


----------



## Peach (Apr 12, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> FDR should be dead last on that list.



I'd put both Nixon & Truman higher than Reagan; FDR seems a bit high but Buchanan is correct at dead last, for now.


----------



## Artevelde (Apr 12, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> FDR should be dead last on that list.



I disagree. He made the US into the World Power that it is today, guided it through one of its greatest domestic crises, etc.


----------



## Artevelde (Apr 12, 2012)

Peach said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > FDR should be dead last on that list.
> ...



Nixon caused one of the most serious constitutional crises and wasn't very succesful domestically.

Truman was a strong President, but Reagan had a much greater personal impact.


----------



## Peach (Apr 12, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > FDR should be dead last on that list.
> ...



Reagan above Eisenhower, Truman and Nixon? How?


----------



## Artevelde (Apr 12, 2012)

Peach said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



Reagan set the mould for the whole era after him. He also was a truly innovative President who changed the direction of the country. Not to mention the fact that he turned around the crisis of confidence for which Richard Nixon (among others) was responsible.

Truman and Eisenhower were strong Presidents, but they didn't really alter the direction of the country they inherited

.


----------



## Peach (Apr 12, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > Artevelde said:
> ...



I think Ford changed the lack of confidence, Reagan slept his way through the Presidency, and BOOM went the debt. I see Nixon as starting the downfall of the USSR, and showing China how much better our economic system is. Truman connected with the American people as one of them. He fought in WWII at age 29, WORKED his way up. Reagan made B grade movies.


----------



## Artevelde (Apr 12, 2012)

Peach said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > Peach said:
> ...



Ford did absolutely nothing to bring back confidence and was a very weak President, as was Carter.

Nixon did the opposite of causing the downfall of the USSR. He was the main proponent of detente and learning to live with a Soviet Union that always would be there. It took Reagan to imagine again the possibility that this would not be so.

As for Truman, he fought in WWI, NOT WWII. Truman, by the way, was often very unpopular and connected with the American people a whole lot less than Reagan.


----------



## Peach (Apr 12, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > Artevelde said:
> ...



Correct, Truman fought in WWI; I never connected with Reagan, nor his DEBT. Reagan POSED and spent, not much else.


----------



## uscitizen (Apr 12, 2012)

The early presidents were the rankist.  They bathed seldom and had no deodorant.


----------



## Artevelde (Apr 12, 2012)

Peach said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > Peach said:
> ...



I disagree. The whole of US politics was different after Reagan, and frankly I'm pretty sure Bill Clinton and Barack Obama would agree with that.


----------



## Artevelde (Apr 12, 2012)

uscitizen said:


> The early presidents were the rankist.  They bathed seldom and had no deodorant.



That's one way of looking at it!


----------



## Peach (Apr 12, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > The early presidents were the rankist.  They bathed seldom and had no deodorant.
> ...



Jefferson over FDR, too...............


----------



## Unkotare (Apr 12, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > FDR should be dead last on that list.
> ...



He burdened all succeeding generations with unsustainable expenses. Most damningly, he threw over 100,000 Americans into concentration camps. Name another president who did that. We've never had anything closer to an actual dictator in our nation's history.


----------



## eflatminor (Apr 12, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> My personal ranking of US Presidents.



What exactly did you rank?  Their personalities?  Surely not their job performance.  Woodrow Wilson..seriously?  He was the worst sack of shit that every worked in DC.  A liar and racists and until recently, no one shit on the Constitution like old Woody.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 12, 2012)

FDR was a failure


----------



## Unkotare (Apr 12, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...




Nixon's crisis was ultimately personal, not constitutional, and he was very successful domestically.


----------



## Peach (Apr 12, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > Peach said:
> ...



And in foreign affairs.


----------



## eflatminor (Apr 12, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > Peach said:
> ...



Nixon forced certain businesses to provide health care coverage.  A monumental screw up.


----------



## Unkotare (Apr 12, 2012)

Peach said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > Artevelde said:
> ...



True. He was a pretty darn good president other than...that thing...


----------



## Douger (Apr 12, 2012)

If you ever vote one in that's worth a fuck I'll let you know. JFK had potential but your masters didn't want the curtain raised.


----------



## Artevelde (Apr 12, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus.


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 12, 2012)

I don't see why Polk is so high, same with McKinley and Andrew Johnson

Wilson, Eisenhower and JFK should be higher


----------



## Unkotare (Apr 12, 2012)

Douger said:


> If you ever vote one in that's worth a fuck I'll let you know. JFK had potential but your masters didn't want the curtain raised.



Shut the fuck up you boring shit.


----------



## Artevelde (Apr 12, 2012)

eflatminor said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > My personal ranking of US Presidents.
> ...



Yes, I ranked their job performance (if that is what you want to call it).

The idea that Woodrow Wilson would be worse than say James Buchanan (who led the country slide into Civil war) is pretty laughable.


----------



## Artevelde (Apr 12, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> I don't see why Polk is so high, same with McKinley and Andrew Johnson
> 
> Wilson, Eisenhower and JFK should be higher



Why Polk is so high? Well, I'm thinking California, Texas, Oregon, and most that's in between.

McKinley was very important for the financial stability and the global expansion of the US.

Andrew Johnson for reconstruction and for holding out executive power against and overambitious Congress.

JFK, really? What did he accomplish?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 12, 2012)

FDR: Allowed Pearl Harbor to happen on his watch, FDR Depression was worse than the 7 Biblical Lean Years, Joe McCarthy warned us that US State and WH Staff reported directly to Moscow, handed China and Eastern Europe to his pals, history's 2 biggest mass murderers Mao and Uncle Joe, Tuskegee Syphilis Experiments, Japanese Internment, confiscated gold, ran over the Constitution

How is that Great except as in a Great Fuck Up?


----------



## Artevelde (Apr 12, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> FDR: Allowed Pearl Harbor to happen on his watch, FDR Depression was worse than the 7 Biblical Lean Years, Joe McCarthy warned us that US State and WH Staff reported directly to Moscow, handed China and Eastern Europe to his pals, history's 2 biggest mass murderers Mao and Uncle Joe, Tuskegee Syphilis Experiments, Japanese Internment, confiscated gold, ran over the Constitution
> 
> How is that Great except as in a Great Fuck Up?



So many historical errors in that posting. I don't have that much time.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 12, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > FDR: Allowed Pearl Harbor to happen on his watch, FDR Depression was worse than the 7 Biblical Lean Years, Joe McCarthy warned us that US State and WH Staff reported directly to Moscow, handed China and Eastern Europe to his pals, history's 2 biggest mass murderers Mao and Uncle Joe, Tuskegee Syphilis Experiments, Japanese Internment, confiscated gold, ran over the Constitution
> ...



pick any one and we'll talk about it


----------



## Dragon (Apr 12, 2012)

You have to consider the times in which they governed. It's ridiculous to compare Abraham Lincoln, who presided over the worst crisis in the nation's history, to Bill Clinton, who was president in a time of peace, prosperity, and nothing-very-important-going-on. How can anyone tell how Clinton would have handled the Civil War?

For that reason, I find Strauss & Howe's four turning idea useful, and can say:

Best High-era president: George Washington

Worst High-era president: Grover Cleveland

Best Awakening-era president: Theodore Roosevelt

Worst Awakening-era president: John Quincy Adams

Best Unraveling-era president: Bill Clinton

Worse Unraveling-era president: James Buchanan

Best Crisis-era president: tie, Abraham Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt

Worst Crisis-era president: Herbert Hoover


----------



## Artevelde (Apr 12, 2012)

Dragon said:


> You have to consider the times in which they governed. It's ridiculous to compare Abraham Lincoln, who presided over the worst crisis in the nation's history, to Bill Clinton, who was president in a time of peace, prosperity, and nothing-very-important-going-on. How can anyone tell how Clinton would have handled the Civil War?
> 
> For that reason, I find Strauss & Howe's four turning idea useful, and can say:
> 
> ...



That doesn't really fly. Clinton faced lots of crises and handled most of them pretty badly. But it is much too soon to judge his presidency.

Also this whole era-thing is completely bogus.


----------



## Artevelde (Apr 12, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



The idea that FDR "allowed" Pearl Harbor to happen is just as much a myth as the idea that George W. Bush "allowed" 9/11 to happen.


----------



## eflatminor (Apr 12, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > Artevelde said:
> ...



Because WWI was a good idea?  Read up on Wilson and get back to us.  Nobody but a supporter of totalitarianism and warmongering (and overt racism) would rank Wilson anywhere but near the bottom.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 12, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Artevelde said:
> ...



We cracked the Japanese codes, Dear.

In December 1941 the German Army was practically banging on the gates of the Kremlin, so it was not looking good for the hometeam of many of FDR's closets advisers. 

They let the attack happen because the Kremlin NEEDED us to be in the war.

Also, try to stay focused, this isn't about "Boosh" and I'll admit that the evidence that FDR allowed Pearl is circumstantial at best -- but what a set of circumstances!


----------



## Artevelde (Apr 12, 2012)

eflatminor said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > eflatminor said:
> ...



Have you actually read any serious historical works on Wilson?


----------



## Artevelde (Apr 12, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



For your information: I'm not your dear.

Somehow you seem to overlook the little fact that it is the Japanese who attacked. And they decided to do this (and well before december 1941 I might add).

There is absolutely no evidence (circumstantial or otherwise) indicating that FDR "allowed" Pearl Harbor to happen. Just a myth. I prefer real history.


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 12, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > Artevelde said:
> ...



He read Glenn Beck


----------



## eflatminor (Apr 12, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > Artevelde said:
> ...



Yes I have, extensively.  As a student of Classical Liberalism, I have sought to understand America's movement away from individual liberty and towards increased central planning.  Certainly Wilson is among the president's that did more than others to usher us down that path.  I've studied Wilson because I know the importance of rule #1:  know thy enemy.

That Wilson was a racist fuck of the worst sort is just icing on the cake.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 12, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Artevelde said:
> ...



Oh sure there's plenty of evidence: stacking the aircraft like firewood, sending the AA teams home, having the carriers out of Sunday maneuvers AWAY from the incoming strike force, standing down from high alert status


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 12, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> > You have to consider the times in which they governed. It's ridiculous to compare Abraham Lincoln, who presided over the worst crisis in the nation's history, to Bill Clinton, who was president in a time of peace, prosperity, and nothing-very-important-going-on. How can anyone tell how Clinton would have handled the Civil War?
> ...



It really comes down to how you did compared to the hand you were dealt by history. Lincoln and FDR were dealt a pretty bad hand. Clinton led in a time of peace and prosperity. Hard to compare the two

In determining how great a President is you have to look at what challenges did they face and how they responded to those challenges as well as what lasting contribution they made to this country


----------



## Artevelde (Apr 12, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



You're seriously saying Roosevelt ordered all that? And that he ordered the Japanese to launch this whole operation? Seek help.


----------



## Artevelde (Apr 12, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > Dragon said:
> ...



I disagree. You have to look at how great the contribution (positive and negative) was that they made to the historical develoment of the country. Every President has ample opportunity for that.


----------



## Artevelde (Apr 12, 2012)

eflatminor said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > eflatminor said:
> ...



The idea that Wilson steered the US towards central planning is pretty laughable.


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 12, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Artevelde said:
> ...



To assume that every President has an equal shot at greatness is short sighted.  When you look at our truly great presidents, they all faced great challenges and handled a national crisis exemplarily. 
Most face calm times and either just ride the tide or use it as an opportunity to move the nation to a new level. 
Teddy Roosevelt is a good example


----------



## eflatminor (Apr 12, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> The idea that Wilson steered the US towards central planning is pretty laughable.



Wow.  That is the single most ignorant statement I've yet seen on this site.

Congratulations.

I could provide plenty of links to studies outlining Wilson's fascist, warmongering, racist and anti-Constitutional policies...but I expect you wish to remain willfully ignorant.  Good luck with that.


----------



## Dragon (Apr 12, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> That doesn't really fly. Clinton faced lots of crises and handled most of them pretty badly. But it is much too soon to judge his presidency.
> 
> Also this whole era-thing is completely bogus.



If you think that Clinton handled, or was faced with, anything remotely comparable to the Civil War, that helps explain why you think the saeculum is "bogus." The big issue of his presidency consisted of stains on a blue dress.

I suggest actually studying the idea before dismissing it. It was used to predict another Crisis era starting in the first decade of the 21st century, and look, here we are.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 12, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Artevelde said:
> ...



I'm saying we knew the Japanese Fleet was inbound and the FDR Administration took steps to insure their "Surprise" attack would be devastating


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 12, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



FDR could have prevented the whole thing by handing out tin foil hats


----------



## Peach (Apr 12, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Artevelde said:
> ...



The US thought the attack would come in the Philippines................


----------



## Dragon (Apr 12, 2012)

The best argument against the conspiracy theory involving FDR and Pearl Harbor is that we lost the battle. A victory would have served as well as a defeat to get the U.S. into the war, and would have left us in a better position in regard to winning it. Roosevelt would have had to be a cretin (which he certainly wasn't) to allow the attack to come off successfully if he'd had detailed advanced warning of it.


----------



## Unkotare (Apr 12, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > Artevelde said:
> ...




Why bother quoting me so you can post something unrelated to my comments?


----------



## BrianH (Apr 13, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > FDR should be dead last on that list.
> ...



He also destroyed the Constitution...and Lincoln as well.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 13, 2012)

Peach said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



Eisenhower should be in the top 5...


----------



## BrianH (Apr 13, 2012)

Dragon said:


> You have to consider the times in which they governed. It's ridiculous to compare Abraham Lincoln, who presided over the worst crisis in the nation's history, to Bill Clinton, who was president in a time of peace, prosperity, and nothing-very-important-going-on. How can anyone tell how Clinton would have handled the Civil War?
> 
> For that reason, I find Strauss & Howe's four turning idea useful, and can say:
> 
> ...



It makes you ask the question about why Lincoln was in the worst crisis...? Was it possibly because he forcefully was stripping the states of their individual sovereignty...maybe?  Was it that states wanted their land back that were being occupied by federal troops but they refused to leave?  (Even though the Constitution never forbade the secession of the states...  This is how the Articles of Confederation were overturned--because the states seceded.)  Every other nation officially ended slavery without a war.  Lincoln strong-armed the states and caused the "crisis" in which you speak.  Make a not to yourself: Any crisis the government is trying to solve for "us" is a crisis caused by the government 99% of the time.  The government likes to cause problems and then step in like the conquering hero and tell us they're helping clean up our mess...


----------



## Oddball (Apr 13, 2012)

Dragon said:


> The best argument against the conspiracy theory involving FDR and Pearl Harbor is that we lost the battle. A victory would have served as well as a defeat to get the U.S. into the war, and would have left us in a better position in regard to winning it. Roosevelt would have had to be a cretin (which he certainly wasn't) to allow the attack to come off successfully if he'd had detailed advanced warning of it.


What a completely convoluted argument.

Win or loss, the Japanese attack would've been launched and a state of war would have existed.

Do you FDR fluffer schmucks bother to rub two cells of grey matter together before hitting submit?


----------



## BrianH (Apr 13, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > Artevelde said:
> ...




It sounds like this list should be titled :Most Influential Presidents because it seems like you're ranking them based on how they influenced the country to change directions at certain times in history.  To rank them on "job performance" is really more of an opinion.  And you have to be clear on what you're using to base your opinion.  If you're using the Constitution then this list is screwed up like a shit sandwhich.


----------



## Unkotare (Apr 13, 2012)

BrianH said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...




Without Lincoln the Union might very likely have been permanently broken.


----------



## Unkotare (Apr 13, 2012)

BrianH said:


> It makes you ask the question about why Lincoln was in the worst crisis...? Was it possibly because he forcefully was stripping the states of their individual sovereignty...maybe?  Was it that states wanted their land back that were being occupied by federal troops but they refused to leave?  (Even though the Constitution never forbade the secession of the states...  This is how the Articles of Confederation were overturned--because the states seceded.)  Every other nation officially ended slavery without a war.  Lincoln strong-armed the states and caused the "crisis" in which you speak.  Make a not to yourself: Any crisis the government is trying to solve for "us" is a crisis caused by the government 99% of the time.  The government likes to cause problems and then step in like the conquering hero and tell us they're helping clean up our mess...




The seeds of civil war were sown long before Lincoln was ever born, and had born the fruit of the inevitable well before he had entered politics on any level.


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 13, 2012)

Oddball said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> > The best argument against the conspiracy theory involving FDR and Pearl Harbor is that we lost the battle. A victory would have served as well as a defeat to get the U.S. into the war, and would have left us in a better position in regard to winning it. Roosevelt would have had to be a cretin (which he certainly wasn't) to allow the attack to come off successfully if he'd had detailed advanced warning of it.
> ...



That was his point. As soon as Japan launched an attack, we were at war. Why would FDR sacrifice his entire fleet of battleships for no reason?


----------



## Dragon (Apr 13, 2012)

BrianH said:


> It makes you ask the question about why Lincoln was in the worst crisis...? Was it possibly because he forcefully was stripping the states of their individual sovereignty...maybe?



The crisis began when the states seceded, not when the fighting started.


----------



## Dragon (Apr 13, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Dragon said:
> ...



Exactly. If he had had advance warning, not only that an attack was coming, but exactly where and when and with what, he'd have arranged to WIN that battle, sink the Japanese fleet, and save our own ships. We'd still have been at war, but we'd have been that much stronger and the Japanese that much weaker.

The fact that we lost the battle shows that Roosevelt did NOT have advance knowledge in any detail (although I believe he did have a good idea that an attack was coming, somewhere, sometime soon).


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 13, 2012)

Sending the carriers out to engage and destroy the Japanese fleet would have left Americans scratching their heads over what was going on. 

But having Pearl lay in ruins and fire with thousands dead is what was needed to stir the public to war


----------



## Dragon (Apr 13, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Sending the carriers out to engage and destroy the Japanese fleet would have left Americans scratching their heads over what was going on.



Nonsense. "Those bastards sneak-attacked us and we kicked their asses." Clear as day. Remember, Roosevelt was looking for a pretext for war against Germany, not Japan. He was expecting a U-boat attack on a U.S. Navy convoy ship. That would have caused far less damage than Pearl Harbor, but he would have used it as his casus belli and gotten a declaration of war from Congress. Pearl Harbor was far greater loss than was necessary to get us into the war.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 13, 2012)

Dragon said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Sending the carriers out to engage and destroy the Japanese fleet would have left Americans scratching their heads over what was going on.
> ...



Really?

Japanese fleet out on recon is engaged and attacked by the US Fleet, where was the "sneak attack"? It seems the US was the ones who ordered the sneak attack.

How would we have known they were on their way here, Sunshine?  That would have tipped our hand that we cracked their codes, no?


----------



## Dragon (Apr 13, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Really?
> 
> Japanese fleet out on recon is engaged and attacked by the US Fleet, where was the "sneak attack"? It seems the US was the ones who ordered the sneak attack.
> 
> How would we have known they were on their way here, Sunshine?  That would have tipped our hand that we cracked their codes, no?



So all ships and personnel are removed from Pearl Harbor, the attack goes in and does no significant damage, and the ships are attacked and sunk after that. Simple enough.

The point is that we lost most of our battleships in that attack. Now, you know and I know that battleships were dinosaurs in World War II and aircraft carriers and submarines were the important ships, but FDR didn't know that -- most naval opinion hadn't caught up yet, and he was far from a naval-tactics visionary. If he had known what was coming, he'd have saved the battleships, and he'd have sunk the enemy fleet. He didn't. Therefore, he didn't know.


----------



## freedombecki (Apr 13, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> My personal ranking of US Presidents. I didn't include any Presidents who were in office less than 20 years ago (too early to judge) and I also left out William Henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor and James Garfield because they served for too brief a period to judge.
> 
> Abraham Lincoln
> Franklin D. Roosevelt
> ...


I guess everyone has their own way of ranking presidents.

Just from what I've read about all the Presidents, I'd have to say that George Washington gave up the most. He was out there on the front line battling an enemy who trained him for war and to whom he once was loyal. But his heart was changed when he saw a monarch turn his back completely on his fellow Americans, and he simply knew what he had to do to free his fellow countrymen from injustice.

It didn't go well at first. He didn't have a strong record of winning battles, but he gained tactical knowledge from one of the world's finest military organizations in the Western world. He had a wife who loved him passionately at home whose friendship was a bond that enabled him to be all that he could be. I cannot say enough about Martha Washington's support of her husband's career in forging a battle win. He also had a good versatility in mathematics--no fuzzy math in America's first engineer/surveyor, and his mind was a sharp tack, honed by the misery of his fellow patriots and made smart by early losses in his military career.

When he got out to the battlefield, he had enemies on both sides of the line--people who wanted his job and would do devious things to get him fired from the task he was given, and an enemy that had superior provisions and healthier men at their disposal, not to mention firepower.

Many of Washington's men marched the soles off their shoes and had inadequate clothing for bitter winters like the horrible one spent at Valley Forge one year. When the civilized world was in his face and the American people who were treated less well than the dogs in King Charlie's court, and disagreeing men in the Continental Congress could not come up with enough support, Washington did what any man in his unenviable position did: He pled his case to Almighty God. The light and guidance he received from being able to lay his cards out on the table in the cold reaches of a lonesome spot outside his encampment with his only witness His God and a nosey neighbor who left saying nothing, Washington received some kind of insight to help him cope with his soldiers' inadequate supplies, inadequate clothing, constant bickering and occasional flat-out insurrection, he got the strength every great man needs: a trust in other men some better and some worse than himself to do a job few in the world have ever been able to do: he inspired his men with this inspiration and intense love he had inside for others to throw off the world's most reknowned fighting system in the world. God in the meantime, sent a Jewish by the name of Solomon, who organized funding for this skirmish, to help America break loose. You may find a brief notice of this financing in The Almanac of American History by Arthur M. Schlesinger, of which I have two copies--my first copy, bought new, is in shambles I read it so many times. I finally got my hands on a hardcover copy of the tome, which I fondly preserve for special trips back in time of events as they happened year by year in our country.

I don't know all the details, I only know a little of suffering, and our first soldiers during the Revolutionary War, finally got their shit together, started doing what General Washington told them to do, timely, and convinced the British things would never be the same again for them on this continent in the lands designated by the Continental Congress as designated over the next 14 years by blood, sweat, and tears of loss.

That is why George Washington is #1. And he remembered who helped him, too. Every official notice he ever turned out always included a remembrance of Almighty God, and his homage to his true freer.

Everybody else is put in the line after Washington. Sometimes it's the one who have the most feces flung at them for having to deal with other countries who rose to the task in the face of almost as much bull-oney as Washington did, less the frozen toes of beloved troops he prayed earnestly and passionately for on a regular basis, who are great presidents. 

Not everything is disclosed to the public, and when they are, the saving grace that accompanied something that looks bad is often suppressed by a press who wants to hurt somebody for disagreeing with their pie-in-the-sky delusion that anything else would have work than what trained men focused on an issue had to do to provide for the common defense.

I have no way of knowing who else was a great President. I love them all for stepping up to the plate and taking a swing at benefitting the American people.

There are just too many armchair coaches in the press with hidden agendas for an average person like me to sift through all the mudslinging to tell, and I wasn't in the board room ever in any administration to fully understand the threats there discussed to intelligently rank presidents.

One thing rang true about Washington, though, is that he was "first in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his fellow countrymen."

O beautiful for pilgrims' feet
Whose stern, impassioned stress
A thoroughfare for freedom beat
Across the wilderness!
America, America,
God mend thine every flaw
Confirm our souls in self-control
Thy Liberty in Law!​


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 13, 2012)

freedombecki said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > My personal ranking of US Presidents. I didn't include any Presidents who were in office less than 20 years ago (too early to judge) and I also left out William Henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor and James Garfield because they served for too brief a period to judge.
> ...



No question Washington was the father of our country. But the question was greatest presidents.  What Washington did on the battlefield was before he was president


----------



## Oddball (Apr 13, 2012)

Dragon said:


> Nonsense. "Those bastards sneak-attacked us and we kicked their asses." Clear as day. Remember, Roosevelt was looking for a pretext for war against Germany, not Japan..


Then why the provocation of the Japanese, by the deployment and activity of the AVG (AKA Flying Tigers) in China, prior to 7 December?


----------



## Dragon (Apr 13, 2012)

Oddball said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> > Nonsense. "Those bastards sneak-attacked us and we kicked their asses." Clear as day. Remember, Roosevelt was looking for a pretext for war against Germany, not Japan..
> ...



Why not? The point was to get us into the war. Roosevelt knew that participation had less than majority support, so he had to get the enemy to attack us first, somewhere, anywhere. He did all kinds of provocative things, such as convoying Lend-Lease freighters with U.S. Navy ships, and cutting off sales of oil and scrap metal to the Japanese.

He manipulated events to get us in. There's no doubt about that. The outrageous claim, though, is that he had detailed knowledge of the Pearl Harbor attack and deliberately sacrificed thousands of American lives and many capital ships. There's no reason to believe that.


----------



## bayoubill (Apr 13, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> My personal ranking of US Presidents. I didn't include any Presidents who were in office less than 20 years ago (too early to judge) and I also left out William Henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor and James Garfield because they served for too brief a period to judge.
> 
> Abraham Lincoln
> Franklin D. Roosevelt
> ...



I don't see any rhyme or reason to your rankings...

so... just curious... what criteria did you use to reach you decisions...?


----------



## Unkotare (Apr 13, 2012)

Dragon said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > It makes you ask the question about why Lincoln was in the worst crisis...? Was it possibly because he forcefully was stripping the states of their individual sovereignty...maybe?
> ...





The crisis began long before that, you ignorant little twerp.


----------



## Unkotare (Apr 13, 2012)

Dragon said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Really?
> ...




Your shameless disregard for logic is duly noted.


----------



## regent (Apr 13, 2012)

How many times has Pearl Harbor been investigated? 
The latest historians rating of the presidents (Siena) used twenty presidential characteristics and rated each president on the twenty. 
As far as I know FDR has never been out of the top three slots on any poll and in this latest Siena poll FDR had the top spot all to himself. 
When polling the public to rate the presidents most citizens are unable to name most of the 43 presidents much less rate them on any historical basis.   
The public begins rating the candidates as soon as they announce, no need to wait. Obama was rated in the Siena 2010 poll.


----------



## Oddball (Apr 13, 2012)

Dragon said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Dragon said:
> ...


OK...So he provoked Pearl Harbor...Glad we settled that.

So much for your bogus claim that FDR didn't want war with Japan.


----------



## Unkotare (Apr 13, 2012)

regent said:


> As far as I know FDR has never been out of the top three slots on any poll and in this latest Siena poll FDR had the top spot all to himself. .




He is the ONLY person on the list of presidents who has thrown over 100,000 innocent American civilians into concentration camps.


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 13, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > As far as I know FDR has never been out of the top three slots on any poll and in this latest Siena poll FDR had the top spot all to himself. .
> ...



Which was objected to by very few Americans of either party. Including the courts


----------



## whitehall (Apr 13, 2012)

Give 'em hell Harry Truman couldn't even muster enough support from his own party to run for a second full term. He was a timid bean counter who couldn't stand up to MacArthur and it cost the lives of 35,000 American Troops in Korea.


----------



## Unkotare (Apr 13, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...



That let's him off the hook?  


There were plenty of people opposed to such an unamerican outrage, including J. Edgar Hoover and Roosevelt's own wife. Maybe if he wasn't so interested in screwing around he would have listened to her and not made himself a villian of history.


----------



## regent (Apr 13, 2012)

Yep, a lot of wrongs occur during a major war, some with the best of intentions and some with the worst of intentions, but wrongs do occur.  Perhaps FDR's biggest wrong during WWII was to appoint MacArthur head of the SW Pacific Theater. That was much more costly.


----------



## ThinkCritically (Apr 13, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> No question Washington was the father of our country. But the question was greatest presidents.  What Washington did on the battlefield was before he was president



One of the most impressive parts of Washington's presidency is that he was essentially a figure head...he had no interest in becoming a dictator.


----------



## ThinkCritically (Apr 13, 2012)

Nixon had to be the worst president we have ever had....worst day of his presidency August 15, 1971.


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 14, 2012)

ThinkCritically said:


> Nixon had to be the worst president we have ever had....worst day of his presidency August 15, 1971.



Nixon was actually quite good in office. His shortfall was his paranoid personality and need to get back at his enemies


----------



## Dragon (Apr 14, 2012)

Oddball said:


> ]
> OK...So he provoked Pearl Harbor...Glad we settled that.
> 
> So much for your bogus claim that FDR didn't want war with Japan.



I made no such claim. But I will now: FDR would have preferred to go to war with Germany only, not Japan, if that were possible. I have a suspicion he knew it wasn't possible, though.

In any case, the assertion I was objecting to was not that Roosevelt provoked the Pearl Harbor attack but that he knew about it in detail ahead of time and deliberately sacrificed thousands of American lives. I think that's BS.


----------



## Dragon (Apr 14, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> ThinkCritically said:
> 
> 
> > Nixon had to be the worst president we have ever had....worst day of his presidency August 15, 1971.
> ...



Exactly. If it weren't for all that paranoid crap, I'd have ranked him as the best Awakening president we've ever had. His accomplishments, in the view of this liberal, were wonderful: the EPA, detente, recognizing China, big advances in civil rights, and he finally got us out of Vietnam. He was like Lyndon Johnson without the big mistake. Too bad about those personal failings of his.


----------



## Artevelde (Apr 16, 2012)

whitehall said:


> Give 'em hell Harry Truman couldn't even muster enough support from his own party to run for a second full term. He was a timid bean counter who couldn't stand up to MacArthur and it cost the lives of 35,000 American Troops in Korea.



That's a bit unfair towards Truman I feel. Overall I feel he wasn't a bad President. But he did make some major mistakes. Did help set the pattern for a lot of things in the Postwar era though.


----------



## Artevelde (Apr 16, 2012)

ThinkCritically said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > No question Washington was the father of our country. But the question was greatest presidents.  What Washington did on the battlefield was before he was president
> ...



Washington helped set the standard for the Presidency and guided the country through a formative period. He played a major role in getting the Federal government on its feet.


----------



## Artevelde (Apr 16, 2012)

Dragon said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > ThinkCritically said:
> ...



I disagree. Nixon accomplished little or nothing that was lasting but did do a lot of damage to the Presidency.


----------



## Artevelde (Apr 16, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Has it occured to you that Japan was attacking on many other fronts simultaneously? All this conspiracy nonsense just messes up your capacity for logical thinking.


----------



## Unkotare (Apr 16, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> ThinkCritically said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Washington had no interest in becoming a dictator. FDR had a hell of a lot of interest in it.


----------



## Unkotare (Apr 16, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Just say you are ignorant of history and leave it at that.


----------



## Artevelde (Apr 16, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > Dragon said:
> ...



That's pretty funny actually.


----------



## Unkotare (Apr 16, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > Artevelde said:
> ...




It's pretty sad, actually.


----------



## Dragon (Apr 16, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



The EPA was lasting. Arms control agreements set precedents that were lasting. We never got back into Vietnam, although unfortunately we got into similarly stupid conflicts later in the Middle East. Measured purely by his accomplishments in office and ignoring his misdeeds, he should be ranked as one of the best presidents in history. We can't ignore his misdeeds, so I'm not suggesting he should be, but credit where it's due.

I understand the antipathy towards Nixon from any liberal who lived through either his presidency or his career in the House, but that shouldn't cause a rational person to overlook his accomplishments.


----------



## Outback (Apr 16, 2012)

I remember studying US Presidents in class and back then I chose Harry Truman to report on.


----------



## Artevelde (Apr 16, 2012)

Dragon said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > Dragon said:
> ...



Those arms control agreements were largely failures and proved stop-gap measures from an Administration that believed the struggle with the Soviet union was meaningless (talk about lack of forsight). Nixon got the US deeper into SE-Asia before he got the US out, and in a fairly bungled way which discredited the US with allies abroad. And the EPA, ranking that as a major accomplishment is pretty laughable. And have you looked at the economy under Nixon?

My judgment has nothing to do with political affiliation or preference. And I'm not a Nixon-basher. But he really wasn't a great President.


----------



## Dragon (Apr 16, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> Those arms control agreements were largely failures and proved stop-gap measures from an Administration that believed the struggle with the Soviet union was meaningless (talk about lack of forsight).



I can't say whether Nixon thought our struggle with the Soviet Union was meaningless, but if he did, he was right. It was. Whether his arms-control agreements were "failures" depends on what you expected them to do. Eliminate the risk of nuclear war? Yes, in that case, but that's an absurd expectation. Improve U.S.-Soviet relations, increase trade, and reduce the risk of war generally? In that case they were a success.



> Nixon got the US deeper into SE-Asia before he got the US out, and in a fairly bungled way which discredited the US with allies abroad.



Nixon's initial move with regard to the war was to bring ground troops home and stop sending draftees. That was a very shrewd political move that dampened the protest movement. Personally, I would have negotiated a peace at that point rather than trying to win through a bombing campaign, so I don't say he's immune to criticism here, but the fact remains that he DID get us out of the war. That makes him miles better than LBJ who got us into it.



> And the EPA, ranking that as a major accomplishment is pretty laughable. And have you looked at the economy under Nixon?



Well, this is interesting. I guess I was wrongly assuming you were a liberal with a liberal's visceral bias against Nixon. Instead, it appears you're a conservative with a conservative's visceral bias against Nixon. Equally irrational, but misidentified by me; my bad.

Yes, I consider the EPA to be a major accomplishment. I consider America's enactment of environmental values, while far from perfect, to be a sign we were moving in the right direction. I would do it differently if it were up to me, but then again we don't have a dictatorship for excellent reasons and I might have gotten something much less satisfactory out of Congress.

As for the economy under Nixon, note once more that we don't have a dictatorship. We suffered ten years of economic problems, from 1973 to 1983, because of control of oil production by a cartel, which first imposed an embargo and later kept prices very high. No president had any control over this whatsoever. The economy was poor in Nixon's last two years, Ford's half-term, Carter's term, and Reagan's first two years for reasons having nothing to do with the policies of any of them; it improved after that for reasons having nothing to do with Reagan's policies.

Saying "look at the economy under X" may serve to convince the ignorant and be a common campaign ploy for that reason, but if you actually believe it, then you are the ignorant one yourself.

I don't consider Nixon a great president, either, but that's because he did something unforgivable: he abused the power of his office to destroy his personal and political enemies. But I consider that classic Greek-tragedy stuff. Here was what _could_ have been a great presidency, ruined by the personal failings of the man in office.


----------



## Artevelde (Apr 17, 2012)

Dragon said:


> I can't say whether Nixon thought our struggle with the Soviet Union was meaningless, but if he did, he was right. It was. Whether his arms-control agreements were "failures" depends on what you expected them to do. Eliminate the risk of nuclear war? Yes, in that case, but that's an absurd expectation. Improve U.S.-Soviet relations, increase trade, and reduce the risk of war generally? In that case they were a success.



To begin with I disagree, rather strongly, with your premisse that the US struggle with the Soviet Union was meaningless. Most historians would agree. And all the arms control agreements did was provide some extra breathing space to the Soviets. They did not really improve relations and only made the world safe for more proxy wars.


----------



## Artevelde (Apr 17, 2012)

Nixon's initial move with regard to the war was to bring ground troops home and stop sending draftees. That was a very shrewd political move that dampened the protest movement. Personally, I would have negotiated a peace at that point rather than trying to win through a bombing campaign, so I don't say he's immune to criticism here, but the fact remains that he DID get us out of the war. That makes him miles better than LBJ who got us into it.


You do realize that over 20,000 of the 58,000 US deaths in Vietnam occurred under Nixon? And that he broadened the war to Cambodia, with disastrous consequences?
As for LBJ getting the US into the War in Vietnam, wrong again: JFK got the US into the War in Vietnam.


----------



## Artevelde (Apr 17, 2012)

Dragon said:


> Well, this is interesting. I guess I was wrongly assuming you were a liberal with a liberal's visceral bias against Nixon. Instead, it appears you're a conservative with a conservative's visceral bias against Nixon. Equally irrational, but misidentified by me; my bad.



I am indeed a conservative (of the European variety, not quite the same as US) but you are again wrong to say I have a visceral hatred of Nixon. I don't.


----------



## Artevelde (Apr 17, 2012)

Dragon;5134045As for the economy under Nixon said:
			
		

> I take it you belioeve a President shouldn't have any economic policies? Maybe you want to abolish the Treasury and Commerce Departments? Get real. Obviously a President is no economic dictator and his impact on the economy is obviously limited, but it can be very real nevertheless. Nixon let inflation get completely out of control.
> The economy is not dictated by the President, but neither is it some force of nature.


----------



## Truthseeker420 (Apr 17, 2012)

Reagan at 5 is laughable.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ndtuG-kous"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ndtuG-kous[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5CCRI1vdwE"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5CCRI1vdwE[/ame]


----------



## Artevelde (Apr 17, 2012)

Truthseeker420 said:


> Reagan at 5 is laughable.
> 
> How Ronald Reagan Destroyed America - YouTube
> 
> How Reaganomics Destroyed The Middle Class...And Maybe America - YouTube



Actually, I put him 6th in my list. But an argument could be made he should be put 5th (switching places with Theodore Roosevelt - close call).

Reagan actually changed the direction of the country in a very profound and lasting way. All Presidents who have followed him have, to an extent, been determined by the direction he chose. Internationally he was very significant too.


----------



## Truthseeker420 (Apr 17, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> Truthseeker420 said:
> 
> 
> > Reagan at 5 is laughable.
> ...





only to a bind homer.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8XVBVkbh0A]The October Surprice, Ronald Reagan and the Media - GET (votes of) CARTER! (1988) - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Truthseeker420 (Apr 17, 2012)

Ronald Reagan: Worst President Ever?

Ronald Reagan: Worst President Ever? | Common Dreams


----------



## Unkotare (Apr 17, 2012)

Are you really so afraid that someone will forget you are a far-left liberal that you need to post shit like this?


----------



## Artevelde (Apr 17, 2012)

Truthseeker420 said:


> Ronald Reagan: Worst President Ever?
> 
> Ronald Reagan: Worst President Ever? | Common Dreams



Do you also try thinking for yourself sometimes?


----------



## Sallow (Apr 17, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> FDR was a failure



Conservatives have this strange thing about using the word "failure".

FDR created a middle class. (Conservative failure)
FDR won WWII. (Conservative failure)
FDR built infrastructure in the US. (Conservative failure)
FDR put power lines into rural areas. (Conservative failure)

Lets look at consevatives idea of "success".

Reagan deregulated the financial industry leading to several huge bailouts. (Conservative success)
Reagan funded the muj leading to both a regressive brutal government in Afghanistan and the worst terrorist attack in American history. (Conservative success)
Reagan secretly funded both Iran and the Contras, breaking with both the Constitution and American law while lying to the American public. (Conservative success)
Reagan enacted the biggest tax hike in American History. (Conservative success)
Reagan blew up the deficit spending like wild on super duper military weapon systems that never materialized. (Conservative success)
Reagan sent Marines into Lebanon which in turn elicted a terrorist attack killing over 200 of them. (Conservative success)

Odd use of the words.


----------



## Unkotare (Apr 17, 2012)

Leave it to Swallow to lionize the scum who threw hundreds of thousands of Americans into concentration camps, extended the Great Depression, amassed dictatorial power, and saddled the nation with insupportable economic burdens.


----------



## Sallow (Apr 17, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> Leave it to Swallow to lionize the scum who threw hundreds of thousands of Americans into concentration camps, extended the Great Depression, amassed dictatorial power, and saddled the nation with insupportable economic burdens.



Is this a free request to swallow my jiz..or are you on the clock again.

Listen little chinese boy who rike to dress like girl and suck off sailors.

Do what you do best. Let your face be target practice for the cum shot.

And do keep up that shit web site..gotta pay those bills..ya know.


----------



## Unkotare (Apr 17, 2012)

This is not the place to try and drum up your business, Swallow. Take a break once in a while. You're too desperate.


----------



## Sallow (Apr 17, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> This is not the place to try and drum up your business, Swallow. Take a break once in a while. You're too desperate.



Drum up business?

I'm not the one dressing like a china doll and asking for a swallow there..little girl. That would be you.

And you're shit sites not panning out?

Try Germans..I hear they like shit.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Di9DBFoIR9M]funny part!!! WoW Southpark: Cartman&#39;s shit - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Artevelde (Apr 17, 2012)

I see we are reaching new heights of civil discourse and debate.


----------



## Unkotare (Apr 17, 2012)

Sallow said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > This is not the place to try and drum up your business, Swallow. Take a break once in a while. You're too desperate.
> ...





Yes, you're trying too hard again, Swallow. You're not going to find any customers here so either discuss the topic or go find the next lamp post, you two-bit little whore.


----------



## Unkotare (Apr 17, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> I see we are reaching new heights of civil discourse and debate.



Swallow is just so damn desperate for customers that she never knows when to stop selling.


----------



## Sallow (Apr 17, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



The only thing little here..is your member..little girl. Which the women of this site already figured out.

They know you like to dress up like a china doll..and play the sucky no fucky game.

They know about your scat sites too.

"Little China Girl".

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzcCVGiP-OE]David Bowie China Girl - YouTube[/ame]

Do construction workers line up for those one yuan specials from ya?


----------



## Artevelde (Apr 17, 2012)

Exchanging mutual compliments does not equal debate.


----------



## Unkotare (Apr 17, 2012)

Sallow said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...





Let it go, Swallow. I told you - no sale. You're a pushy little bitch, Swallow, but the hard sell ain't working for ya.


----------



## Unkotare (Apr 17, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> Exchanging mutual compliments does not equal debate.



She doesn't know when to stop. Must be working to support a 'habit.'


----------



## Sallow (Apr 17, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



You charging again? Sheesh. I don't want you to swallow my jiz..get it?

Free or otherwise you are still a little boy in girl's clothing..china doll.

But, how's the scat sites working for you? Making any money yet?


----------



## Artevelde (Apr 17, 2012)

As the great orator and not-so-great politician Cicero would say: "O tempora, o mores!"


----------



## Unkotare (Apr 17, 2012)

Sallow said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...





NO SALE, Swallow. Move along.


----------



## Sallow (Apr 17, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



So "No Sale swallow" now? Confusing as heck. You're command of engrish is a rittre weak. Like you.

And you're way to little to make me "move along" there little girl.

Easy now.


----------



## Unkotare (Apr 17, 2012)

Sallow said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...





No sale. Your lack of punctuation aside, even a strung out little whore like you should have gotten the message by now. Run along, Swallow.


----------



## Sallow (Apr 17, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



So..you are getting violent now..because I won't let you swallow my jiz?

Again..little girl..on your best day..you couldn't make me move anywhere.

Lay off that needle..you are getting delusional.


----------



## Unkotare (Apr 17, 2012)

Sallow said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...




Aw, poor little Swallow. In your line of work you probably get brutalized so often you end up cringing like a beaten dog all the time. Don't worry, little Swallow, just go away.


----------



## Sallow (Apr 17, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...





All that time in the hot sun on your knees servicing dockworkers have really gotten to you..

Along with the cum that splatters on your face and in your mouth.

Guess it's made you all delusional there..little china doll. But hopefully you clean up nice. You can't be making all that much from the Japanese shit sites you got running.


----------



## Artevelde (Apr 17, 2012)

Maybe the two of you could start up a thread on prostitution and oral sex somewhere else?


----------



## Sallow (Apr 17, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> Maybe the two of you could start up a thread on prostitution and oral sex somewhere else?





Dude I don't start this shit.

More then willing to go over your topic. I posted a comparison between Reagan and FDR.

But china doll has it bad.


----------



## Unkotare (Apr 17, 2012)

Sallow said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...





I really don't need to hear your life story, Swallow. Just run along.


----------



## Unkotare (Apr 17, 2012)

Sallow said:


> Dude I don't start this shit.





If you had a dime for every time you said that you could go score another fix, eh Swallow?


----------



## Sallow (Apr 17, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



You don't want to hear my life story..you just want to swallow.

Like I said.

No.


----------



## Sallow (Apr 17, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Dude I don't start this shit.
> ...



China Doll..that doesn't even make sense.

Oh..you heard the word "shit" and went to pieces.

Got it.


----------



## Artevelde (Apr 17, 2012)

The two of you are obsessed. Get a room!


----------



## Unkotare (Apr 17, 2012)

Sallow said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...





Nobody does, Swallow.


----------



## Sallow (Apr 17, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



You just wanna dispense with the talking and get right to the swallow..I get it. Real pro attitude.

No sale. Not even for free.

Don't get huffy..it's not you..well it is you..you are sorta male.

And I ain't into males..even if they clean up nice and look like a china doll.

How's the shit sites going, by the way? You getting anyone looking at them?


----------



## Unkotare (Apr 17, 2012)

Sallow said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...




Your line of work really isn't about talking, is it Swallow? Take it somewhere else.


----------



## Sallow (Apr 17, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



I'm not the one asking for a swallow, China Doll. That would be you. It's called advertising. That's English. 

Here's something you can understand..

&#24191;&#21578;&#19994;


----------



## Unkotare (Apr 17, 2012)

Sallow said:


> It's called advertising.




Poor little Swallow, abused and left to fend for herself on the streets. This is what she's come to.


----------



## Truthseeker420 (Apr 17, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> Truthseeker420 said:
> 
> 
> > Ronald Reagan: Worst President Ever?
> ...



insinuating i'm a sheep is "thinking for yourself"?


----------



## Truthseeker420 (Apr 17, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > As far as I know FDR has never been out of the top three slots on any poll and in this latest Siena poll FDR had the top spot all to himself. .
> ...



Reagan threw 300 million Americans into concentration camps we are living in today.


----------



## PredFan (Apr 17, 2012)

1. Thomas Jefferson

2. George Washington

3-42 Everyone else

43. Carter

44. Obama


----------



## Unkotare (Apr 17, 2012)

Truthseeker420 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...



Not figurative, subjective, biased, hyperbolic lefty symbolism - I mean actual, barbed wire and armed guards concentration camps, you *stupid fuck*.


----------



## ginscpy (May 7, 2012)

If LBJ was involved in the JFK assn - that makes him the slam-dunk worst president.

Was pretty bad anyway.

An accidental(?)  president.

And a quitter.   Didnt run for a full 2nd term.

Case closed.


----------



## rightwinger (May 7, 2012)

ginscpy said:


> If LBJ was involved in the JFK assn - that makes him the slam-dunk worst president.
> 
> Was pretty bad anyway.
> 
> ...



LBJ had a bipolar presidency.  His legislative accomplishments with Civil Rights, Medicare, war on poverty as well as his contributions to the space program were outstanding

He got pulled into a quagmire in Viet Nam and fell for the trap of.......just a few more troops and we can win this thing


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 7, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Dragon said:
> ...



I read your post 4 times and it makes less sense each time. What "many other fronts" are you talking about (and I'm dreading the stupid answer to follow)


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 7, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> ginscpy said:
> 
> 
> > If LBJ was involved in the JFK assn - that makes him the slam-dunk worst president.
> ...



LBJ held up Ike's Civil Right Bill from 1957 until 1964.


----------



## rightwinger (May 7, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > ginscpy said:
> ...



And as president in 1965 he could have vetoed it..........he didn't and it cost his party the South for the next 45 years


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 7, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



So he should have held the bill up longer? Wasn't 7 years enough?


----------



## ginscpy (May 7, 2012)

You may have heard about "Tailgunner" Joe McCarthy - and how he embellished his war record.

LBJ was even more of a phony.

Went on a mission in the South Pacific as an observer  - dindt come within a 100 miles of Jap fighters - and made himself out to be a hero.


----------



## ginscpy (May 7, 2012)

I don't know much about Woodrow Wilson -except that without the US declaring war in 1917 - Germany would have won WW1.


----------



## Oddball (May 7, 2012)

ginscpy said:


> I don't know much about Woodrow Wilson -except that without the US declaring war in 1917 - Germany would have won WW1.


First of all, WWI was pretty much a stalemate when the US intervened.

As for the rest of Wilson's wretched record...

The Federal Reserve.
16th Amendment, income tax and the terrorist organization known as the IRS.
17th Amendment, stripping state legislatures of any say in federal spending.
Fired scores (hundreds?) of blacks involved in the federal bureaucracy and re-segregated  the military.
Forget WWI...He also invaded Mexico, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, and forced his choice of puppets into office.
Supporter of eugenics.

I can't think of a more despicable man to hold the office.


----------



## Unkotare (May 7, 2012)

oddball said:


> ginscpy said:
> 
> 
> > i don't know much about woodrow wilson -except that without the us declaring war in 1917 - germany would have won ww1.
> ...




fdr


----------



## Artevelde (May 8, 2012)

ginscpy said:


> If LBJ was involved in the JFK assn - that makes him the slam-dunk worst president.
> 
> Was pretty bad anyway.
> 
> ...



Only nutcases like Oliver Stone believe that LBJ was involved in the assassination of JFK.


----------



## Artevelde (May 8, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



The Philippines, Hong Kong, Malaya, the Dutch East Indies, ...
Do you know anything about WWII?


----------



## bayoubill (May 8, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> FDR should be dead last on that list.



naaa... that place is saved for Woodrow Wilson and LBJ fighting it out for the "top" spot...


----------



## Unkotare (May 8, 2012)

bayoubill said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > FDR should be dead last on that list.
> ...




Which one of them threw over 100,000 innocent US civilians into concentration camps?


----------



## bayoubill (May 8, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > I don't see why Polk is so high, same with McKinley and Andrew Johnson
> ...



The way Andrew Johnson mishandled reconstruction directly led to the problems that exist to this day between blacks and whites...


----------



## bayoubill (May 8, 2012)

Dragon said:


> You have to consider the times in which they governed. It's ridiculous to compare Abraham Lincoln, who presided over the worst crisis in the nation's history, to Bill Clinton, who was president in a time of peace, prosperity, and nothing-very-important-going-on. How can anyone tell how Clinton would have handled the Civil War?
> 
> For that reason, I find Strauss & Howe's four turning idea useful, and can say:
> 
> ...



even though I don't quite agree some of the particulars, that's a pretty cool breakdown...


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 8, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Artevelde said:
> ...



Yeah, I'm somewhat familiar with WWII. Your comment is still a total nonsequitur to my post. I think you're missing a few sentences


----------



## bayoubill (May 8, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > Artevelde said:
> ...



imho, not necessarily a bad thing... 

two separate unions, the USA and the CSA, coulda worked...

but that's a topic for another thread...


----------



## Unkotare (May 8, 2012)

bayoubill said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > BrianH said:
> ...




Be sure and post it in the 'Stupid Forum.'


----------



## bayoubill (May 8, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> bayoubill said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



is that where you live...?


----------



## Unkotare (May 8, 2012)

I live in the Union that we have preserved for so long.


----------



## Unkotare (May 8, 2012)

But I'd at least vacation in the Stupid Forum.


----------



## bayoubill (May 8, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> But I'd at least vacation in the Stupid Forum.



I'll buy the next round...


----------



## Unkotare (May 8, 2012)

bayoubill said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > But I'd at least vacation in the Stupid Forum.
> ...





Sounds good.


----------



## bayoubill (May 8, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> My personal ranking of US Presidents. I didn't include any Presidents who were in office less than 20 years ago (too early to judge) and I also left out William Henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor and James Garfield because they served for too brief a period to judge.
> 
> Abraham Lincoln
> Franklin D. Roosevelt
> ...



my list would look a bit different...

While Ill grudgingly grant Abraham Lincolns position in the top five... 
George Washington should absolutely be in the number one position... 

other main differences:

Franklin D. Roosevelt should be much farther down the list...
Theodore Roosevelt shouldnt be in the top ten...
Lyndon B. Johnson should be at the very bottom of the list...
Harry Truman should be round about the middle instead of the top ten...
Woodrow Wilson should be fighting for last place with Lyndon B. Johnson and James Buchanan...
Grover Cleveland should be in the top 10...
Andrew Johnson should be closer to the bottom...
John F. Kennedy, Richard Nixon, and Gerald Ford should be ranked higher than Herbert Hoover and Ulysses S. Grant...


----------



## Artevelde (May 9, 2012)

bayoubill said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > My personal ranking of US Presidents. I didn't include any Presidents who were in office less than 20 years ago (too early to judge) and I also left out William Henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor and James Garfield because they served for too brief a period to judge.
> ...



Well, we'll have to agree to disagree. No harm in that.


----------



## eraser2000 (May 14, 2012)

people often forget to mention Adams but during the War of 1812 he refused to infringe on The Constitution or on any of our civil liberties despite the wholesale invasion of destruction of our country


----------



## rightwinger (May 14, 2012)

eraser2000 said:


> people often forget to mention Adams but during the War of 1812 he refused to infringe on The Constitution or on any of our civil liberties despite the wholesale invasion of destruction of our country



It was James Madison who almost gave away the country in the War of 1812


----------



## regent (May 15, 2012)

The real question is what criteria do we use to judge the presidents?  Do we just use our political leanings or do we use a set of specifics to rate? The recent Siena poll asked the historians to rate on twenty specifics that they deemed important to good presidential leadership.  Such items as the economy, appointments, foreign policy,  taking risks, relationship with Congress, intelligence and others were used.  The presidents were then rated on each item. Lincoln was tops in six catagories, FDR in four.  What do voters believe makes a good president?


----------



## Artevelde (May 16, 2012)

regent said:


> The real question is what criteria do we use to judge the presidents?  Do we just use our political leanings or do we use a set of specifics to rate? The recent Siena poll asked the historians to rate on twenty specifics that they deemed important to good presidential leadership.  Such items as the economy, appointments, foreign policy,  taking risks, relationship with Congress, intelligence and others were used.  The presidents were then rated on each item. Lincoln was tops in six catagories, FDR in four.  What do voters believe makes a good president?



I take a somewhat more straigthforward approach. I ranked them according to their overal impact (positive and negative) on the historical development of the United States. I also feel there has to be sufficient distance (a few decades at least).


----------



## regent (May 17, 2012)

In reference to the charges that historians are liberal and biased in their ratings of presidents, and particulary after Reagan was rated just above Chester A. Arthur, the conservatives decided to poll conservative scholars and eureka, their first poll,  placed Reagan in the near-great catagory. Encouraged, the Wall Street Journal and the Federalist Society polled again, and again Reagan was rated as near-great. Yet FDR was still rated as one of the three greatest American presidents in most polls .


----------



## Agent_Mulder (May 19, 2012)

JFK and Thomas Jefferson were hands-down the greatest presidents of all-time!!


----------



## Artevelde (May 20, 2012)

Agent_Mulder said:


> JFK and Thomas Jefferson were hands-down the greatest presidents of all-time!!



JFK? You must be kidding!


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (May 20, 2012)

Not including current presidents is a cop out. We know as much about them as anyone. "It's too early to tell," is just a line that the media uses to not have to put their guys in the spotlight for their b.s.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (May 20, 2012)

Five worst presidents.

1. Obama
2. FDR
3. Lyndon Johnson
4. Jimmy Carter
5. Bill Clinton


----------



## Peach (May 20, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > Artevelde said:
> ...



I do not agree with the majority many times on American history, It was my primary field of concentration in college. I saw Reagan as grinning idiot, George HW Bush a welcome relief; Reagan spiked the debt, invaded Grenada, and talked of being "a cavalry man". I was  was embarrassed to say his name at times. 

In the end however, *Nixon* began detente & went to China. Nixon let Soviets know there was food if the arms race eased.  The flip side of course is the cover up of "a third rate burglary". Ford brought calm to the nation, and started the healing process after Nixon resigned. Our then enemies did not gain an inch due to his serene 'business as usual'  attitude.  The USSR was on its way down before the grinning Z grade movie face entered the picture. 

One person's views do not reflect America, I know many who liked seeing the his face, and adored the "tear down this wall" pose. I of course believe Nixon tore down the wall by letting more & more* Soviets know how superior our economic & political system is. The majority matter, as you wrote "connecting" with the American people is important. Thus, Reagan ranks higher with more Americans.

I rank Eisenhower higher because of Little Rock. He too "connected" as GHWB never could. 

I'd put FDR third, fourth or fifth; as Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus, I would not rank him at #1, though still in the top five. Jefferson at #1, Madison in the top ten, as 1812 was our first, and perhaps biggest, threat to national sovereignty. Buchanan & Pierce at the bottom as they ignored the growing crisis of North/South.   

Andrew Jackson is a truly mixed bag; the Indian killer and the voice of the 'common man'. Wilson, I also rank higher than most Americans, and give credit to Edith Wilson as the first female "acting" President. 

* The old cliche "how ya gonna keep 'em down on the farm when they have seen the big city"? seems to fit.


----------



## Artevelde (May 21, 2012)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Not including current presidents is a cop out. We know as much about them as anyone. "It's too early to tell," is just a line that the media uses to not have to put their guys in the spotlight for their b.s.



I disagree. Experience shows that Presidents are often ranked worst just after they leave office. Some distance is necessary to have a proper perspective. That's why I not only exclude currenty serving Presidents but also recent ex-Presidents.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (May 21, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > Not including current presidents is a cop out. We know as much about them as anyone. "It's too early to tell," is just a line that the media uses to not have to put their guys in the spotlight for their b.s.
> ...



B/C a lot of the people doing the rankings are f'ing morons. We know the facts. The facts aren't changing.


----------



## Two Thumbs (May 21, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > FDR should be dead last on that list.
> ...



fdr was a murdering tyrant that 'needed' war to end the Depression.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (May 21, 2012)

Two Thumbs said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



I don't know where you get the murdering stuff from; but he did royally screw the country over and he did it while pretending he was a hero. Sound like someone we know today?


----------

