Unfortunetly there is not enough room for a poll. Anyways, take your picks. I'd say it's a tie between FDR and Lincoln. Lincoln saved the union when he defeated the south(thank you brave soldiers and generals) as well as did away with slavery. FDR meanwhile saved America from depression and led us through all but a few months of world war two. You guys may agree or disagree, but one things for sure. Let the debate begin!

FDR was a dismal leader until the war. The public works programs didn't improve the economy, tried to pack the Supreme Court, and opened the door for the modern welfare state.

I don't want to say any one President is the "best" because all of the great ones were great for their time. I still say Carter was the worst though.

FDR's plan did help the economy. Unemployment drasticly reduced after he statrted his economic reforms. He also started get get rid of the gold=economy and started the now traditional American Deficet Spending (which although bad, actually is truely not that bad as we don't seem to ever have to pay it off. America actually went bankrupt during WW2, and technially we still are.)

FDR, TR, and Jefferson are all rather tied in my mind, FDR with his excellent socialist policies ironically saved the working class and the free market at the same time, TR had some of the best statesmanship shown by a president in negotiating the end to the Russo-Japanese war and his anti-trust policies saved the country from the clutches of big business, though unfortunately now some are trying to destroy that legacy, Jefferson was a truly brilliant man, responsible for some of the most important documents in our history and also a brilliant speaker and author.

James Polk. Never has so much been done in four years.

My favorite presidents:

T. Roosevelt: Speak Softly... (enough said ;))
Lincoln: Preserved the Union (though he wasn't the one to offically end slavery, but it was the Republican Party that did it)
Washington: Got the whole president thing on track
Reagan: Commies beware!

The Presidents that I thought were horrible:

FDR: Put Japanese Americans in camps, started useless programs which did not help us, and he tried to pack the Court
Clinton: Kosovo and new medical legislation that didn't quite work the way he wanted it to
Hoover: Hoovervilles anyone?
Grant: Great general, definately one of the best ever in the US, but he needed help in office

what about washington, no one has mentioned him

It would help to define the criteria a little more. What does it mean to be a 'good' President and what does it mean to be a 'bad' one? During their term of office did the United States advance in prestige and power on a global scale? During their term did the country suffer a depression, civil war, foreign war, or terrorist action? What did they do about it? Was their response effective? Or does the question ask instead if the President was good for their political party or political philosophy. Did their supporters gain power in the other branches of government during their term?

Without more narrow definition, it's really not easy to say who was good or bad. It Is easy to say who one's favorite President was and so far it appears that is what most people are going to answer here, persons they admired. This will also very much reflect more on the person who is being asked than the President himself. If that ends up being the criteria (who is the man you most admired in office) then I'd be stuck with a short list of my own: William Henry Harrison, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and Ronald Reagan. I did not select Presidents that I agreed with 100% in ideology (although I would have voted for every one of them in the years they ran for office (save FDR 1932/1936), but ones that I believe displayed strength of charcter, were effective Leaders and Commanders in Chief, and were not afraid to take an unpopular stand for what they believed was right. Unfortunately I cant narrow it down past there because the men I listed were all Great men for different reasons.

@RMSharpe, I agree with you 100% regarding FDR's pre-war new deal boondoggles, but I didnt choose him for that ;) He earned a place on my list for his leadership during WW2.

@Zarn, I think it might be time to take another look at Hoover's record. He got a lot of credit for a lot of bad things, particularly the Depression. He was more a prime example of a good man in the right place at the wrong time than anything else. Sort of like the opposite of LBJ.. bad man in the wrong place at the right time. :lol:


-Elgalad

George Washington
Thomas Jefferson
James K Polk
Abraham Lincoln
Theodore Roosevelt
Franklin Delano Roosevelt

It's one of these guys, but I'm not quite sure which.

Abraham Lincoln, one of the greatest presidents, if not the greatest, of all times.

O Captain! my Captain! our fearful trip is done,
The ship has weather'd every rack, the prize we sought is won.

W.W.

Lincoln also :)

Woodrow Wilson.

The more pacifistic idealists in the White House, the better.

It would help to define the criteria a little more. What does it mean to be a 'good' President and what does it mean to be a 'bad' one? During their term of office did the United States advance in prestige and power on a global scale? During their term did the country suffer a depression, civil war, foreign war, or terrorist action? What did they do about it? Was their response effective? Or does the question ask instead if the President was good for their political party or political philosophy. Did their supporters gain power in the other branches of government during their term?

Without more narrow definition, it's really not easy to say who was good or bad.
-Elgalad

Agreed. So on that basis:

Best President when the country suffered a disaster:
- Lincoln. 'Nuff said.

Best President for advancing prestiege and power :
- Teddy Roosevelt for negotiating the Russo-Japanese
War, and the Great White Fleet.

Best President for their political party :
- FDR. Put together a coalition that was dominant for
almost 50 years.

Washington (and the first couple of Congresses) gets
special mention for getting the country off the ground;
i.e. taking the Constitution from a piece of parchment to
a working system.



Worst president was undoubtedly Buchanan. Something
about fiddling whist Rome burned...

Woodrow Wilson.

The more pacifistic idealists in the White House, the better.
I'd hardly consider Wilson to be pacifistic, considering that he was responsible for us entering World War I.

Wilson held out for a long time.

Lincoln, he played the Civil War so perfectly.

I'd hardly consider Wilson to be pacifistic, considering that he was responsible for us entering World War I.
No, it was German sinking of American vessels that caused us to enter the war.

Woodrow Wilson.

The more pacifistic idealists in the White House, the better.


????

Woodrwo Wilson betrayed the American people and took them into WW I. How is he a pacifist idealist? He became a power hungry demagogue, thinking he could create a new world of peace through the force of war.

I like Jefferson, BTW.


No, it was German sinking of American vessels that caused us to enter the war.

The Luisitania... Germany was even kind enough to POST A FULL PAGE AD IN THE NEW YORK TIMES declaring the Luisitania was carrying weapons to britain, and therefore was considered an enemy ship, and would be sunk. Every fool on that ship deserved their fate!

BTW, Wilson ranks number 43 in my book, behind even W himself.

The FDR and TR are tied for me.

The worst president in my mind is Truman. He tried and tried to get rid of my beloved Corp. :cry: :mad: Luckily he failed :)

FDR was a dismal leader until the war. The public works programs didn't improve the economy, tried to pack the Supreme Court, and opened the door for the modern welfare state.

I don't want to say any one President is the "best" because all of the great ones were great for their time. I still say Carter was the worst though.

I can't say who was the best president, but I always admired FDR for trying to pack the Supreme Court. Here he was trying to get programs up and running to as to get people working again and the SC proceeds to strike down legislation supposedly on a unconstitutional basis.
Although Congress voted down FDR proposal to pack the court, it had the desired effect: the SC adopted judicial restraint on such economic policies and kept its nose out. Now that's a strong president! As to how effective the programs ultimately were, one can argue that at least he was providing leadership, doing SOMETHING to help as opposed to the previous administration that felt government should not interfere in the economy. Oh yeah, like what were the destitute complaining about?

I can't say who was the best president, but I always admired FDR for trying to pack the Supreme Court. Here he was trying to get programs up and running to as to get people working again and the SC proceeds to strike down legislation supposedly on a unconstitutional basis.
Although Congress voted down FDR proposal to pack the court, it had the desired effect: the SC adopted judicial restraint on such economic policies and kept its nose out. Now that's a strong president! As to how effective the programs ultimately were, one can argue that at least he was providing leadership, doing SOMETHING to help as opposed to the previous administration that felt government should not interfere in the economy. Oh yeah, like what were the destitute complaining about?


FDR also confiscated all American's gold coins and bullion. Talk about outright government robbery. But i am sure that had nothing to do with making the economy rebound.....


http://www.strike-the-root.com/columns/Chkoreff/chkoreff1.html

My personal favourite is Thomas Jefferson, although there are other great ones.

The Luisitania... Germany was even kind enough to POST A FULL PAGE AD IN THE NEW YORK TIMES declaring the Luisitania was carrying weapons to britain, and therefore was considered an enemy ship, and would be sunk. Every fool on that ship deserved their fate!

BTW, Wilson ranks number 43 in my book, behind even W himself.

Oh yes it's the predisent's decision to go to war, not congress :rolleyes:. ANyways he held off till only a few months till the end of the war, only after American WARSHIPS were fired upon by german submarines, an act of war!

Oh yes it's the predisent's decision to go to war, not congress :rolleyes:. ANyways he held off till only a few months till the end of the war, only after American WARSHIPS were fired upon by german submarines, an act of war!

The president is commander in chief. He doesn't have to move a soldier if he doesn't want to.

Poor, innocent american warships, gaurding flotillas of transports shipping arms and weapons to Britain.

FDR also confiscated all American's gold coins and bullion. Talk about outright government robbery. But i am sure that had nothing to do with making the economy rebound.....


http://www.strike-the-root.com/columns/Chkoreff/chkoreff1.html

Interesting, until I viewed the link. :rolleyes:

As I said, the effectiveness/wisdom of FDR's actions as an administrator is open to debate. The one thing that was clearly immoral was the Japanese American internment. Absolutely shameful.

Keep in mind that Lincoln himself suspended civil law in the territories and soon after habeas corpus throughout the country as well as assumed other powers not delegated to the president in the constitution. He also ignored SC rulings. So it could be argued that Lincoln abused power and was therefore a dreadful president. Not something a president would do in normal times, but Lincoln wasn't serving in normal times. Neither was FDR.

Interesting, until I viewed the link. :rolleyes:

As I said, the effectiveness/wisdom of FDR's actions as an administrator is open to debate. The one thing that was clearly immoral was the Japanese American internment. Absolutely shameful.

Keep in mind that Lincoln himself suspended civil law in the territories and soon after habeas corpus throughout the country as well as assumed other powers not delegated to the president in the constitution. He also ignored SC rulings. So it could be argued that Lincoln abused power and was therefore a dreadful president. Not something a president would do in normal times, but Lincoln wasn't serving in normal times. Neither was FDR.

what was wrong with the link? Maybe this one is better

http://www.the-privateer.com/1933-gold-confiscation.html

I have kept in mind what Lincoln did.

Lincoln was involved in a Civil War.

What was FDR's excuse?

Best:
Washington
Jefferson
Jackson
T Roosevelt
Reagan

Worst:
FDR
LBJ
Buchanan
Carter
Hoover

The president is commander in chief. He doesn't have to move a soldier if he doesn't want to.

Poor, innocent american warships, gaurding flotillas of transports shipping arms and weapons to Britain.

Article 1 Section 8 Clause 11

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

Under Aritcle 2(the one about the president), there is nothing that states whether or not he is obligated to fulfill congress' order to war other than saying he is Commander-in-Chief. Normally when a nation declares war though, they send troops over.

Article 1 Section 8 Clause 11

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

Under Aritcle 2(the one about the president), there is nothing that states whether or not he is obligated to fulfill congress' order to war other than saying he is Commander-in-Chief. Normally when a nation declares war though, they send troops over.


And Wilson was re-elected on....

"he kept us out of the War"

So even if they declare war, it is not his duty to enforce congressional will.

I don't think we've ever had Congress declare war, and not had the President execute the war. Of course, now we have the President essentially declare and execute the war and we have Congress sitting around like a bunch of dopes.

Keep in mind that Lincoln himself suspended civil law in the territories and soon after habeas corpus throughout the country as well as assumed other powers not delegated to the president in the constitution. He also ignored SC rulings.

Erm, suppension of habeas corpus during a time of war is allowed by the constitution

A)Theodore Rooselcet; neve rhas our nation had such an awesome dude take the reigns of government, and moreover, actually actiin the nations, and the masses general interests

B)Adams; the Treaty of barbary is the blessing that estbalished our nation as being a seculer state; even if the vast majority of the people dont know it.

Erm, suppension of habeas corpus during a time of war is allowed by the constitution

That's correct, but the constitution gives the power to suspend it to Congress - not the President.

To quote "The Constitution For The United States - Its Sources and Its Application":

"It was held by Chief Justice Taney shortly after the outbreak of the Civil War that President Lincoln did not have power to suspend the privilege of the writ, Congress alone possessing that authority. The President had suspended the privilege in several instances where former officers of the army or the government had gone over to the Confederacy and were active in the North against the Union. Such persons were put in prison and held without trial.

"To set the matter at rest Congress later authorized President Lincoln to suspend the writ of habeas corpus."

I have kept in mind what Lincoln did.

Lincoln was involved in a Civil War.

What was FDR's excuse?

A)the worst depression in US history

B)the worst war in the history of the world

Good:
Woodrow Wilson-Tried to keep America out of WWI
FDR-WWII, lead the nation in the war better than anyone could
James Monroe- Told Europe not to fool around anymore in the New World
Andrew Jackson- Ended nullification problem with South Carolina

what was wrong with the link? Maybe this one is better

http://www.the-privateer.com/1933-gold-confiscation.html

I have kept in mind what Lincoln did.

Lincoln was involved in a Civil War.

What was FDR's excuse?

The following quote is taken from Frank Freidel's book, "Franklin D. Roosevelt: Launching the New Deal"

"The Great Depression of the 1930s was the worst economic slump ever to affect the United States. It was not just a national economic crisis, but one which spread to virtually every country. The greatest calamity to befall Americans in the 20th century was the Great Depression--a worse calamity than even two world wars. The Depression began with the Wall Street stock market crash in October 1929. Soon business were going under and Americans were losing their jobs. All Americans were affected. Eventually about one-third of all wage earners were unemployed and many who kept their jobs saw their earmings fall. President Hoover who had engineered a humanitarian miracle in Europe during World War was unable to break away from the mindset that the Government should not intervene in the economy. President Roosevelt was elected by a landslide in 1932. He brought energy and new ideas to Washington and the Federal Government initiated programs that would have been rejected out of hand only a few years ago. Roosevelt was willing to use the Government to solve economic and social problems besetting Americans."

And that's really all I'm saying about FDR. He knew action was needed and he didn't twiddle his thumbs. Like Lincoln, he responded energetically to a unprecedented crisis and was willing to go up against critics of his day as well as the judgment of history. He may not have had a clue on economics but he had backbone.

And Wilson was re-elected on....

"he kept us out of the War"

So even if they declare war, it is not his duty to enforce congressional will.

If congress declares war, he should do what they say, or else it would have caused major problems. If he does not then why have a republic if we elect a person who does not do the will of the people. We entered the war due to the Zimmerman Telegram, and he should have gone to war over it. When he was being elected the people never thought Germany would be that blunt about how they did not like us.

If congress declares war, he should do what they say, or else it would have caused major problems. If he does not then why have a republic if we elect a person who does not do the will of the people. We entered the war due to the Zimmerman Telegram, and he should have gone to war over it. When he was being elected the people never thought Germany would be that blunt about how they did not like us.

Wilson wanted to join the war, to create a utopia of it's ashes. The huge anti-war movement was silenced, and hoodwinked by the interventionalists.

The isolationist movement was huge, and organized, and even after the war, Wilson's league fell in the face of isolationist pressures.


And that's really all I'm saying about FDR. He knew action was needed and he didn't twiddle his thumbs. Like Lincoln, he responded energetically to a unprecedented crisis and was willing to go up against critics of his day as well as the judgment of history. He may not have had a clue on economics but he had backbone.

Taking people's gold is completely unjust, uncalled for, and the actions of a tyrant.

So is allowing your people to suffer in poverty.

I'm going to be completely random and simplistic and say Coolidge. ;)

So is allowing your people to suffer in poverty.

So making gold illegal, contraband, alleviates suffering? How do you figure?

Think what you wish, distort the word tyrant all you want. According to your logic, someone who sat around and did nothing is a tyrant. Tyranny is an active force, not a passive one.

And by YOUR logic Neomega, ALL governments in the world are tyrants, because they ALL take valuables from their citizens.

Taxes, I believe they call it.

Bill Freaking Clinton.

We'll probably never have an awesome President like him again :(

22 Million Jobs created in 8 years? Wow.

22 Million Jobs created in 8 years? Wow.

In just four years, James K. Polk acquired territory that is now home to almost 60 million Americans and constitutes a large percentage of our natural resources.

Behold, the land acquired by James K. Polk.

Orange states were entirely acquired by Polk (all the land they have was brought under US control during Polk's term); blue states were partially acquired by Polk (some of their land was brought in during Polk's term) and Texas, which is green, was annexed by the previous US President after Polk won the election; without Polk's election, there would be no mandate for the annexation of Texas. Polk was furious that his predecessor took the honor of annexing Texas from him; it would likely have been one of his first acts in office otherwise.

Lincoln saved the union when he defeated the south(thank you brave soldiers and generals) as well as did away with slavery.
At the cost of 700.000 lifes and destruction of southern economy.
Slavery (and thus secession feelings) were without any future anyway.

Wilson wanted to join the war, to create a utopia of it's ashes. The huge anti-war movement was silenced, and hoodwinked by the interventionalists.

Joining the war would not have made a utopia of any kind. The anti-War movement was not silenced, if it was he would not have beeen reelected.

Joining the war would not have made a utopia of any kind. The anti-War movement was not silenced, if it was he would not have beeen reelected.

HE WAS ELECTED BY THE ANTI WAR MOVEMENT

Read about it. It is greatly accepted... the BIG slogan was "HE KEPT US OUT OF THE WAR" He went into the war after... wait...


I see where the confusion lies, and a similar situations right now.

John Kerry does not claim he opposes the Gulf War, just who handled it. Still, a majority of those in the anti-war camp are going to vote for Kerry, thinking it is a vote against the invasion of Iraq... when nothing can be further from the truth.

Kerry intends to stay in Iraq.

I see the confusion now.

Still, the American people made thier voice clear with the elction of Wilson, and he betrayed it. The election was very much so a referendum to many of the voters on the War in Europe, and whether America should join. Wilson decided the isolationist voice, which was raised loudly during his re-election, did not deserve to be heard.

And by YOUR logic Neomega, ALL governments in the world are tyrants, because they ALL take valuables from their citizens.

Taxes, I believe they call it.

Gold?

How many countries go around trying to sieze gold?

None, Except maybe communists and thugs, during revolutions.

Hillary Clinton. Sorry, Bill Clinton. A strong team, like Justinian and Theodora. :)

The best President the US ever had, from an outside point of view.

Some US friends claimed, he was only lucky that the economy was rising during his period. Others despise his sex affair.


Do you think so bad of him, too? I think he was really good:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/bc42.html

I want also to add, both Kerry and Bush do not compare to him. Perhaps it would be a good idea to vote Hillary Clinton for President?

my favourite one: bill clinton!

he made america more popular in the world and richer than its ever been before, his national security policy (osama was trying to blow up america back then too), and his personal charisma

the one i like the most as a person is carter, but he was probably a bit too good and had too much integrity to do a really good job as president!

While I will be one of the first to defend Clinton from his numerous critics, I find it odd that so many European members are hailing him as our greatest President ever. I do suspect that this may be a sort of veiled attack on Bush (i.e., I don't like him, so I will praise his predecessor) or simply a sympthom of only Clinton and Bush (and perhaps Bush, Reagan, and Carter) being known to them and Clinton appearing as the most favorable.

I do not believe that Clinton will be remembered as a "great" President; I think that Clinton will be remembered as having presided over a peaceful period of growth and transition; a confusing yet prosperous time in which the world had yet to adjust to post-Cold War realities or was in the process of doing so. In many ways, he is comparable to Eisenhower, who is currently remembered in a similar fashion.

For all this, however, Clinton did nothing that drastically changed the nation or the world. I believe that other Presidents that did so (Jackson, Polk, Lincoln, etc.) are more suited to be answers to such a question.

Did Polk create 22 Million Jobs in eight years?

Huh?

Of course not!

Did Polk create 22 Million Jobs in eight years?

Huh?

Of course not!

Did Clinton acquire one-third of our country's land in four years?

I think Polk's accomplishments are grander and more historic than Clinton's.

Clinton could have annexed the Middle East if he had wanted to :(

You know, Polk might have been totally overshadowed if Lewis Cass had won the election of 1848. Some say that Cass wanted to invade and conquer Canada.

@SeleucusNicator : Just to pick a nit, you should have said "the territory comprising
the states" rather than "the states", since Texas was the only state admitted from
that area during Polk's time in office.

Your statement about Cass is a lot of the reason why I'm not sold on Polk
as a great President. Those things would have happened anyway, as the
country was fully in the grip of "Manifest Destiny". Although I do give Polk
marks for compromising the Oregon Territory border with Britain.

@Capulet : Clinton gets far too much credit than he deserves for creating those
jobs. That said, it should be noted that any President gets too much credit
for good economic times and too much blame for bad times.

Your statement about Cass is a lot of the reason why I'm not sold on Polk
as a great President. Those things would have happened anyway, as the
country was fully in the grip of "Manifest Destiny". Although I do give Polk
marks for compromising the Oregon Territory border with Britain.

Henry Clay would not have gone to war with Mexico, and it is doubtful that he would have annexed Texas. The Whigs were more or less firm against expansion into southern areas, since this would ultimately bring about sectionalist tensions, which, they corectly predicted, would focus American politics away from areas where Whigs had an advantage.

i liked clinton even before the 2000 election, although its not a secret that i think bush is a complete idiot!

but if i wanted to attack him, i would!

this is the best pres thread, not the worst!

interesting question

I think that FDR, Lincon, Washington, Jefferson and mabye Kennedy might be our top 5.

I consider Reagan and Clinton to be mixed bags. both did some great things for the country, and both did some very very stupid things (Reagan, S&L Scandal, Iran Contra, and Clinton: Monica, not getting Bin Ladin when we had the chance)

Van Bueran, Harding and Pierce might be our worst

I'd vote Washington, Lincoln, and Reagan. :)

I have more than one favorite like most others that posted here. Mine are:
Lincoln (saved the Union)
FDR (helped us in WWII)
Washington (first president)
Reagan (helped us get out of the cold war)
Theodore Roosevelt (great president in general, overall)

Kind of hard to choose just 1.

Gold?

How many countries go around trying to sieze gold?

None, Except maybe communists and thugs, during revolutions.

Gold is just another form of valuable. It's an alternative to carrying your cash in wades of green bills, and nothing more (except when used as jewelry). It's not like gold can be used to fuel cars, it'S not like you can eat gold.

Gold has virtually no use except as a valuable that can be traded in for services or goods that you actually DO have a use for.

So why should it be treated any different from plain old money?

Gold is just another form of valuable. It's an alternative to carrying your cash in wades of green bills, and nothing more (except when used as jewelry). It's not like gold can be used to fuel cars, it'S not like you can eat gold.

Gold has virtually no use except as a valuable that can be traded in for services or goods that you actually DO have a use for.

So why should it be treated any different from plain old money?

So the government should have the right to take anything that has less than utilitarian value?

Is that what you are actually trying to argue?

:confused:

No, my point is, why is it perfectly moral for the government to take green bills away from people but not yellow shiny metal?

In the end, taxes are taxes. You are taking a certain amount of valuables away from the people, and that'S that. Wether those valuables happen to be in the form of green bills or in the form of solid yellow shiny bars is patentedly irrelevant : the people lose the same amount of valuable in the end.

I mean, would you be more comfortable with the notion of what FDR did if he had forced everyone who owned gold to pay the government a certain sums of green bills equal to the value of the gold they owned?

Taxes are taxes, wether they are paid in food, in gold or in monies.

At the cost of 700.000 lifes and destruction of southern economy.
Slavery (and thus secession feelings) were without any future anyway.

poppy cock.

The feeligns behind the civil war; states rights; is still a stronglyl debated subject; the most recent major attention given to it, is gay marriges, and weather or not it should be up to each individual state, or the federal government to decide the official policy on the issue.

other then that, your right; slavery had no future, and was destined to whither away, thought the south had no economic future anyway, as its main cash crop, cotten, was no longer valuble to britian, who had been the biggest buyer of the crop, because of its colony of India..

interesting question

I think that FDR, Lincon, Washington, Jefferson and mabye Kennedy might be our top 5.

I consider Reagan and Clinton to be mixed bags. both did some great things for the country, and both did some very very stupid things (Reagan, S&L Scandal, Iran Contra, and Clinton: Monica, not getting Bin Ladin when we had the chance)

bin laden has been on FBIs most wanted list, as number 1 for a long time, even way before the 9/11, since 1994 or something, i saw it with my own eyes back when internet was new!

the guy that said he offered bin laden to clinton is a bussines man, currently working for (tadaaa) FOX NEWS!!

in other words, if he told me he is a liar i wouldnt belive him!

No, my point is, why is it perfectly moral for the government to take green bills away from people but not yellow shiny metal?

In the end, taxes are taxes. You are taking a certain amount of valuables away from the people, and that'S that. Wether those valuables happen to be in the form of green bills or in the form of solid yellow shiny bars is patentedly irrelevant : the people lose the same amount of valuable in the end.

I mean, would you be more comfortable with the notion of what FDR did if he had forced everyone who owned gold to pay the government a certain sums of green bills equal to the value of the gold they owned?

Taxes are taxes, wether they are paid in food, in gold or in monies.

It wasn't a tax.

It amount to the same, though. You're taking valuables from the people. All governments do that, from the most friendly democracy to the most awful dictatorship. All governments have ALWAYS done that, and governments will ALWAYS do that, because governments need SOMETHING to pay for all the stuff they are supposed to run - food and weapons for the armies, ink for the printers, money for the employees, etc.

To call a government tyrannical because they take valuables from the people is a vast overstatement. FDR might have done some very questionable things, but calling him a tyran over his taking valuables from the people for the use of the state is going a WEE bit too far in your definition of a tyran.

It amount to the same, though. You're taking valuables from the people. All governments do that, from the most friendly democracy to the most awful dictatorship. All governments have ALWAYS done that, and governments will ALWAYS do that, because governments need SOMETHING to pay for all the stuff they are supposed to run - food and weapons for the armies, ink for the printers, money for the employees, etc.

To call a government tyrannical because they take valuables from the people is a vast overstatement. FDR might have done some very questionable things, but calling him a tyran over his taking valuables from the people for the use of the state is going a WEE bit too far in your definition of a tyran.

It isn't the same. Taxes are paid in reserve notes. Paper.

You can tax diamonds, and gold, and other various luxury taxes, yes. But taking them is outright robbery, and clearly a violation of the 4th amendment, as it is unreasonable search and siezure. It was a despicable act, and my opinion of FDR is definitely low enough to think he set up pearl harbor, as my grandfather, who was a survivor believed for years before he died.

Lincoln, for all the reasons stated above.

So is taking drugs from people an outright violation of the 4th amendment too?

Give it up. The government is perfectly within its rights to forbid ownership of certain items (unless doing so expressedly go against the constitution, ie weaponry), and there's nothing particularly despicable or disgusting in them doing so.

When you get right down to it, people were behaving like panicky morons as a result of the depression, and Roosvelt passed a law to force them to stop driving the economy even further into the ground. That's what the whole thing boils down to.

As for the Pearl Harbor debate, I am still (and have been for a long time) of the opinion that blaming Roosvelt for it is no different from blaming Isreal for 9-11. Both were a series of catastrophic intelligence failure, compounded (for Pearl Harbor) by atrocious overconfidence at all level of the military command chain.

But people don't want to believe the "bad stuff happens" explanation for why they were caugh with their pants down ; they'd much rather think that someone betrayed them, as it make the disaster the result of someone's deliberate evil rather than pure, blind failure.

So is taking drugs from people an outright violation of the 4th amendment too?

Give it up. The government is perfectly within its rights to forbid ownership of certain items (unless doing so expressedly go against the constitution, ie weaponry), and there's nothing particularly despicable or disgusting in them doing so.


1. Regardless of my opinion on the issue, the drugs are purchased illegally, gold was not. This question is irrelevant.
2. The government cannot forbid items that were owned previously, grandfather clause.
3. Your tax argument has been blown to bits, so now you are advocating the right of a government to sieze property.


When you get right down to it, people were behaving like panicky morons as a result of the depression, and Roosvelt passed a law to force them to stop driving the economy even further into the ground. That's what the whole thing boils down to.

Spoken like a man without a clue.


As for the Pearl Harbor debate, I am still (and have been for a long time) of the opinion that blaming Roosvelt for it is no different from blaming Isreal for 9-11. Both were a series of catastrophic intelligence failure, compounded (for Pearl Harbor) by atrocious overconfidence at all level of the military command chain.

But people don't want to believe the "bad stuff happens" explanation for why they were caugh with their pants down ; they'd much rather think that someone betrayed them, as it make the disaster the result of someone's deliberate evil rather than pure, blind failure.

Why? Why would my grandfather prefer to believe this in his late years?
He hated hippies, was by no means left wing.
I personally am not sure if it was a set-up or not.

I DO KNOW ROOSEVELT STOLE AMERICANS GOLD.

Would you support George Bush seizing all Hummers to help the economy?
How about if Clinton decided to sieze all stock accounts.
Maybe Carter should have just solved inflation problems by siezing all diamonds and houses that had more than 5 bedrooms.

Hoover, what a fool, he should have just siezed all rail lines and means of production, and built American into national socialism... that would have solved Ameria's problems right then and there.

BTW, asking me to give it up is laughable, since I have already shot both your "can't eat gold" lousy argument, and then "it's just a tax" lousy arguments to a fiery death. Oh and the "drug siezure" one was crippled before it got off the ground.

NeOmega 3, Oda Nobunaga 0

:sniper: :sniper: :sniper:

1 ) I never made the argument that taking gold was somehow right because you can't eat it ; the exact argument was that gold was in the end no different from money, because it had no other use except as a valuable which can be traded away for services and goods. THIS was the argument I made. That you would reduce it to "you can't eat gold so it's alright to take it" shows your utter failure to understand what I said. The point STILL stand that in effect, gold back then WAS money - quite literally in fact, since every american dollar represented a very specific amount of gold (go ahead and check your first link, it does discuss that). In essence, back in 1933, paper bills were nothing more than a physical representation of gold.

So your claim that gold should have been immune to taxation because it was gold is bollocks ; gold WAS money back then, and (paper) money WAS gold, or at least a physical representation of a specific amount of gold.

Which is what the whole "gold has no use other than as a value" argument was, so kindly can the food argument - it was entirely irrelevant at the start, still is, and certainly was NOT a point you scored.

2)I did not drop the tax argument because you scored anything ; I dropped it because careful re-reading of the texts you pointed out brought me to notice a point I had originally missed, which made the whole taxes argument entirely irrelevant, as well as the vast majority of the points you made.

3)Said point is found in the exact text of the law you posted :

Section 4. Upon receipt of gold coin, gold bullion, or gold certificates delivered to it in accordance with Section 2 or 3, the Federal reserve bank or member bank will pay thereof an equivalent amount of any other form of coin or currency coined or issued under the laws of the Unites States.

Obviously under that section, the whole question of wether or not a tax of gold would have been legitimate was moot, so I dropped it. No victory of yours, simply me realizing you and I had both been arguing a moot point ; it was NOT taxation to begin with.

However, it does not make you any righter, because there is most certainly NOTHING tyrannical or despicable in a government legaly taking private property - AS LONG as said government takes care to properly compensate the previous owner - which the law you are so grouchy about obviously did, as per the section pointed above.

The US constitution, incidentally, DOES provide for such taking of private property if properly compensated. It's in the fifth amendment, the very last sentence of it - which forbids the taking of private property for public use, UNLESS the previous owner is given just compensation.

A lot of public-owned installations (roads, power lines in any country in the world were the power grid is operated by the state, military installations iirc, etc) are build right that way ; the proper term for it is expropriation. And if you honestly believe THAT is tyranical, then allow me to invite you to the moon ; otherwise pretty much any government you live in *WILL* wind up resorting to so-called tyranny at one point at least during your life.

(incidentally, one would like to know how exactly Roosvelt STOLE the gold, since the government paid the exact value price of the gold it acquired.)

As for your long list of examples, my answer is pretty much straightforward : yes, it's legitimate, as long as the government takes the time to properly compensate the owner it takes the property from. Which the Roosvelt administration did.

----------------

As for Pearl Harbor, why is your grandfather not being from the left-wing in any way relevant to this? Conspiracy theories are NOT exclusive to ANY political allegiance - everyone has their conspiracy theories, and most of them are stupid (in that respect at least the Pearl Harbor notion is better than most ; it's not too stupid an idea in itself).

A more important question would be, what did your grandfather do at the time of the war?

I could see why his opinion of the whole matter would be worth special weight if he was, perhaps, an intel officer prior to pearl or something similar, or if he worked with the army or navy staff in DC, but if he was a low-to-mid grade officer at pearl (or any other military base), then the blunt fact is that he most likely know no more of this whole matter than you or I : just what information there is in the public domain.

1 ) I never made the argument that taking gold was somehow right because you can't eat it ; the exact argument was that gold was in the end no different from money, because it had no other use except as a valuable which can be traded away for services and goods. THIS was the argument I made. That you would reduce it to "you can't eat gold so it's alright to take it" shows your utter failure to understand what I said. The point STILL stand that in effect, gold back then WAS money - quite literally in fact, since every american dollar represented a very specific amount of gold (go ahead and check your first link, it does discuss that). In essence, back in 1933, paper bills were nothing more than a physical representation of gold.

So your claim that gold should have been immune to taxation because it was gold is bollocks ; gold WAS money back then, and (paper) money WAS gold, or at least a physical representation of a specific amount of gold.

Which is what the whole "gold has no use other than as a value" argument was, so kindly can the food argument - it was entirely irrelevant at the start, still is, and certainly was NOT a point you scored.

2)I did not drop the tax argument because you scored anything ; I dropped it because careful re-reading of the texts you pointed out brought me to notice a point I had originally missed, which made the whole taxes argument entirely irrelevant, as well as the vast majority of the points you made.

3)Said point is found in the exact text of the law you posted :

Section 4. Upon receipt of gold coin, gold bullion, or gold certificates delivered to it in accordance with Section 2 or 3, the Federal reserve bank or member bank will pay thereof an equivalent amount of any other form of coin or currency coined or issued under the laws of the Unites States.

Obviously under that section, the whole question of wether or not a tax of gold would have been legitimate was moot, so I dropped it. No victory of yours, simply me realizing you and I had both been arguing a moot point ; it was NOT taxation to begin with.

However, it does not make you any righter, because there is most certainly NOTHING tyrannical or despicable in a government legaly taking private property - AS LONG as said government takes care to properly compensate the previous owner - which the law you are so grouchy about obviously did, as per the section pointed above.

The US constitution, incidentally, DOES provide for such taking of private property if properly compensated. It's in the fifth amendment, the very last sentence of it - which forbids the taking of private property for public use, UNLESS the previous owner is given just compensation.

A lot of public-owned installations (roads, power lines in any country in the world were the power grid is operated by the state, military installations iirc, etc) are build right that way ; the proper term for it is expropriation. And if you honestly believe THAT is tyranical, then allow me to invite you to the moon ; otherwise pretty much any government you live in *WILL* wind up resorting to so-called tyranny at one point at least during your life.

(incidentally, one would like to know how exactly Roosvelt STOLE the gold, since the government paid the exact value price of the gold it acquired.)

As for your long list of examples, my answer is pretty much straightforward : yes, it's legitimate, as long as the government takes the time to properly compensate the owner it takes the property from. Which the Roosvelt administration did.

----------------

As for Pearl Harbor, why is your grandfather not being from the left-wing in any way relevant to this? Conspiracy theories are NOT exclusive to ANY political allegiance - everyone has their conspiracy theories, and most of them are stupid (in that respect at least the Pearl Harbor notion is better than most ; it's not too stupid an idea in itself).

A more important question would be, what did your grandfather do at the time of the war?

I could see why his opinion of the whole matter would be worth special weight if he was, perhaps, an intel officer prior to pearl or something similar, or if he worked with the army or navy staff in DC, but if he was a low-to-mid grade officer at pearl (or any other military base), then the blunt fact is that he most likely know no more of this whole matter than you or I : just what information there is in the public domain.

Could you make it a little more concise? After reading all of your previous inane, misguided, and assembled on the fly arguments, do you think I actually want to read this essay?

Could you make it a little more concise? After reading all of your previous inane, misguided, and assembled on the fly arguments, do you think I actually want to read this essay?

Nice way of backing out of the debate. :rolleyes:






(Note to self: When in a debate that I currently do not want to engage in, simply claim the other person has misguided and insane arguements)

Nice way of backing out of the debate.






(Note to self: When in a debate that I currently do not want to engage in, simply claim the other person has misguided and insane arguements)

Well, since from the start he really didn't know what he was talking about, and was arguing for arguments sake.....

....and, I said inane, not insane.

Could you make it a little more concise? After reading all of your previous inane, misguided, and assembled on the fly arguments, do you think I actually want to read this essay?

Where are the moderators? This kind of flaming has no place on the forums IMO!
And, Neomega, if you don't want to read his arguments - which, BTW, seem anything but assembled on the fly, whatever else you may think of them - don't enter discussions in the first place; Oda certainly took much more time writing them than it would take you to read them.

With this kind of comment you are just revealing yourself as opinionated and unwilling to truly discuss the matter - so why post on the forum in the first place?

While I will be one of the first to defend Clinton from his numerous critics, I find it odd that so many European members are hailing him as our greatest President ever. I do suspect that this may be a sort of veiled attack on Bush (i.e., I don't like him, so I will praise his predecessor) or simply a sympthom of only Clinton and Bush (and perhaps Bush, Reagan, and Carter) being known to them and Clinton appearing as the most favorable.

Being a European myself, I'd like to comment on that: it's probably true that some Europeans only know about the last few Presidents, but you might be surprised about the level of knowledge at least of those on these forums...

You are certainly right that George W. is held in practically universal disdain over here! But Clinton had a good press here while still in office - the Monica business even giving him a sympathy bonus for many, as we regard this kind of press hounding as intolerable and the whole business as totally irrelevant to his qualities as a politician in the first place.

Personally, I don't see him as the greatest US President, though. My list would go something like this:

Jefferson
Lincoln
Kennedy
then maybe Teddy Roosevelt or FDR

I don't buy the argument about Polk though: it seems to me that the westward expansion would probably have happened in much the same way under any administration.

And, Neomega, if you don't want to read his arguments - which, BTW, seem anything but assembled on the fly, whatever else you may think of them - don't enter discussions in the first place; Oda certainly took much more time writing them than it would take you to read them.

With this kind of comment you are just revealing yourself as opinionated and unwilling to truly discuss the matter - so why post on the forum in the first place?
Especially when Oda arguments make sense and not Neomega's

I thought the results of the "October 2000 Survey of Scholars in History, Politics & Law" as sponsered by the Federalist Society & the Wall Street Journal were interesting. They rated the presidents as follows:

Great
1) George Washington
2) Abraham Lincoln
3) Franklin Roosevelt

Near Great
4) Thomas Jefferson
5) Theodore Roosevelt
6) Andrew Jackson
7) Harry Truman
8) Ronald Reagan
9) Dwight Eisenhower
10) James Polk
11) Woodrow Wilson

Above Average
12) Grover Cleveland
13) John Adams
14) William McKinley
15) James Madison
16) James Monroe
17) Lyndon Johnson
18) John Kennedy

Average
19) William Taft
20) John Quincy Adams
21) George Bush (Senior)
22) Rutherford Hayes
23) Martin Van Buren
24) William Clinton
25) Calvin Coolidge
26) Chester Arthur

Below Average
27) Benjamin Harrision
28) Gerald Ford
29) Herbert Hoover
30) Jimmy Carter
31) Zachary Taylor
32) Ulysses Grant
33) Richard Nixon
34) John Tyler
35) Milliard Filmore

Failure
36) Andrew Johnson
37T) Franklin Pierce
37T) Warren Harding
39) James Buchanan

The Most Over-rated Presidents (same survey):

1) John Kennedy (43 Scholars)
2) Ronald Reagan (23)
3) Woodrow Wilson (21)
4) Andrew Jackson (10)
4) Thomas Jefferson (10)
6) Bill Clinton (8)
6) Lyndon Johnson (8)
8) Franklin Roosevelt (7)
9) Dwight Eisenhower (6)
9) Harry Truman (6)

They forgot the 40th one in the extra failure category

They forgot the 40th one in the extra failure category

Grover Cleveland's two terms were not consecutive, so he was counted as the the 22nd and 24th President, thus the numbering doesn't quite jive.

Edit: I forgot to mention, they dropped the data on James Garfield and William Harrison because of their very brief terms in office.

The Most Under-Rated Presidents:

1) Ronald Reagan (16 scholars)
2) Calvin Coolidge (14)
3) Dwight Eisenhower (12)
4) Herbert Hoover (12)
5) Richard Nixon (11)
5) James Polk (11)
7) Jimmy Carter (10)
8) Ulysses Grant (9)
9) Lyndon Johnson (8)
10) John Adams (6)
10) William McKinley (6)

So, presidents which are over rated AND under rated:

Ronald Reagan
Dwight Eisenhower
Lyndon Johnson

Where are the moderators? This kind of flaming has no place on the forums IMO!
And, Neomega, if you don't want to read his arguments - which, BTW, seem anything but assembled on the fly, whatever else you may think of them - don't enter discussions in the first place; Oda certainly took much more time writing them than it would take you to read them.

With this kind of comment you are just revealing yourself as opinionated and unwilling to truly discuss the matter - so why post on the forum in the first place?


Did you read anythig about why siezing gold helped the American economy?

All I read about was how it's the US government's right to sieze anything it wants, (which it is not), and silly arguments that were wasting my time, like "it was a tax," (which it wasn't, and I got tired of explaining why it wasn't), "Who cares because it's just yellow metal, and your can't eat it, or put it in your car." (Totally inane). I'm not wasting my time on it anymore unless I see some real arguments, not assembled on the fly arrogance.

But I really decided I didn't want to talk to him any more when he said, "give it up"


Should I? Should I respect that kind of candor? I think not.

So, presidents which are over rated AND under rated:

Ronald Reagan
Dwight Eisenhower
Lyndon Johnson

Yeh, leading one scholar to say that rating the presidents is more of a palour game than anything else.

As far as the over-rated/under rated question, the survey said, "Because this question refers to an unstated baseline reputation, the results are not terribly meaningful."

It has to be George Washington, he created the very base.

And now the Most Controversial Presidents:

1) Bill Clinton (1.11 standard deviation)
2) Woodrow Wilson (1.09)
3) Ronald Reagan (1.08)
4) Richard Nixon (1.07)
5) Lyndon Johnson (1.03)
6) Calvin Coolidge (0.97)
7) Ulysses Grant (0.89)
8) Herbert Hoover (0.87)
9) Andrew Johnson (0.81)
10) James Polk (0.80)

My post summed up.

1 - The "you can't eat it" notion was ONE part of my entire "gold is just another form of money" argument. That you would think I was arguing that you can seize gold because it can't be eaten shows how much attention you're paying. The very fact that each dollar represented a very specific amount of gold back in 1933 (as per your first article) drive my point home : paper money was just a convenient way to represent shiny yellow metal, which was the ACTUAL currency - much like checks these days are a convenient way to represent greenies you aren't actually carrying with you.

2 - I dropped the tax argument not because you won, but because on further re-reading of the whole thing I noted one point I had missed, namely that the law specificaly said that people were to be compensated in an equal amount of greenies for the gold that was taken. Obviously then the whole point of wether or not it would have been a legitimate tax is moot.

3 - I note that taking private property for public use in exchange for just compensation is pretty much provided for in the last sentence of the fifth amendment (US constitution), which state that no one should have its private property taken for public use UNLESS just compensation is given. I also note that 90% of public infrastructure was built through land obtained in a nearly identical fashion.

4 - I point out that your grandfather's being a right-wing anti-hippie is patentedly irrelevant to the entire matter at hand ; conspiracy theories are sadly not exclusive to any political allegiance.

5 - I also ask, what exactly did your grandfather serve as in World War II? If he was an intel officer prior to pearl, or working in the high-up circles at Pearl or in Washington, then yes, I can see why his opinion should be given special weight, but if he was a simple soldier back then then he has no more information available to him than we do - just what facts are publicly available these days, so in essence is opinion is no more informed than yours or mine.

I thought the results of the "October 2000 Survey of Scholars in History, Politics & Law" as sponsered by the Federalist Society & the Wall Street Journal were interesting. They rated the presidents as follows:

Great
1) George Washington
2) Abraham Lincoln
3) Franklin Roosevelt

Near Great
4) Thomas Jefferson
5) Theodore Roosevelt
6) Andrew Jackson
7) Harry Truman
8) Ronald Reagan
9) Dwight Eisenhower
10) James Polk
11) Woodrow Wilson

Above Average
12) Grover Cleveland
13) John Adams
14) William McKinley
15) James Madison
16) James Monroe
17) Lyndon Johnson
18) John Kennedy

Average
19) William Taft
20) John Quincy Adams
21) George Bush (Senior)
22) Rutherford Hayes
23) Martin Van Buren
24) William Clinton
25) Calvin Coolidge
26) Chester Arthur

Below Average
27) Benjamin Harrision
28) Gerald Ford
29) Herbert Hoover
30) Jimmy Carter
31) Zachary Taylor
32) Ulysses Grant
33) Richard Nixon
34) John Tyler
35) Milliard Filmore

Failure
36) Andrew Johnson
37T) Franklin Pierce
37T) Warren Harding
39) James Buchanan

thats an interesting list. I think that...
Overrated from that list: Reagan, Van Burean, Arthur
Underrated: Johnson, Clinton and possibily Hoover. I liked most of the ratings though

My favorite presidents (ones I think did a good job for when they were in office) would have to be Lincoln, Clinton, FDR, and TR.

Poor William Henry Harrison didn't even get a mention. Maybe it's the fact that he spent all 30 days of his term on his deathbed.

How Nixon and Tyler are in the same category according to that rank is beyond me. In fact, it offends me.

Poor William Henry Harrison didn't even get a mention. Maybe it's the fact that he spent all 30 days of his term on his deathbed.

Now thats a TOUGH term :crazyeye: !

I'm going with Lincoln, FDR, JFK and Clinton.

Washington.

It had to take some serious balls to be able to hold the nation together and fight for independence during a time when the nation was very much the disunited states of america. He also managed to do so without joining a politcal party and gave the nation great advise in his farewell address to stay out of alliances. I salute you :salute:

Second would be Lincoln, again, for preserving the union in a time of sectionalism.

Nixon, without a doubt
Got us out of Vietnam
The first US president in China
and got yankered for the trouble....

Nixon, without a doubt
Got us out of Vietnam
The first US president in China
and got yankered for the trouble....

:goodjob:
He was my favorite too, except for STUPIDGATE :blush: :mischief:

isnt it a little hard to look past that? that scandal summed up Nixon as a person pretty well. Id say Stupidgate was the biggest presidential scandal, and did more for screwing up a term then anything else. More then Teapot Dome. More then Iran/Contra, and more then Monicagate.

I personally believe he had no prior knowledge of the break in, BUT upon learning of it took full responsibilty for the actions of his subordinates...

I personally believe he had no prior knowledge of the break in, BUT upon learning of it took full responsibilty for the actions of his subordinates...

You must be kidding, right?
Nixon was a capable and formidable politician, but he was paranoid, deceitful and had a penchant for cutting corners. Nixon knew of what his ‘plumbers’ were doing from the get go; whether he initiated the criminal activity is debatable, but once they were proposed, he gave the green light to them and even proposed some of the illegal activities himself right from the Oval Office.
It’s all on tape. Doesn’t anyone remember the ‘smoking gun’ tape made on June 23, 1972, a few days after the break-in at the Watergate building? It records Nixon’s ‘suggestion’ that the CIA be used to derail the FBI’s investigation into the break-in. Can ‘Obstruction of Justice’ get anymore clearer than that?
The Watergate break-in was minor in itself; the cover-up was to prevent the exposure of all the underhanded activities that were being directed right from the Oval Office.
Nixon did not act as someone who was innocent; he had something to hide and thus delayed in releasing the tapes. He never apologized or admitted any wrongdoing, despite evidence to the contrary. However, according to President Ford, one of the requirements necessary to receive a presidential pardon is to admit guilt to the crimes being pardoned for. Nixon had to do that in order to get the pardon. Interesting.
Of all the presidents, Nixon came closest to being a classical Greek tragedy figure; a man of immense abilities done in and ultimately destroyed by his own weaknesses. But he deserves no sympathy.

1. Lincoln. First of all, this is the only lawyer in american history to do anything right. All bs aside, Lincoln was the best president america had and ever will have. He was uncorrupted by politics (i sometimes wonder if he hadn't been assassinated if he would have been), he lead us through the worst internal conflict in our history, changed the "United states" from a plural to a singular term, freed the slaves, and actually kicked out the worthless generals of the time. Nowadays, the phrase that follows "what would Jesus do?" should be "what would Lincoln do?".

2. Washington. Lead the troops to victory in the revolution. Pres of the constitutional congress. First Pres. And in a stroke of genious advised the US not to mingle in the affairs of other nations and to refrain from creating political parties.

3. Regan & Truman. Regan saved the US from the disaster we call the 60s and 70s. He defeated communism and ended the cold war despite political opponents who highly critisised his methods. In 50 years, political hatred against him will completely melt away and he will be considered amoungst the ranks of the mount rushmore presidents. Truman ties with Regan because Truman ended WWII and saved millions of American lives from the impending war in Japan.

It is important to note that Lincoln and Wahington are great for winning wars while Regan and Truman are great for ending them.

The three worst presidents in US history:

1. Clinton & Carter. Clinton was horrible in too many ways to count. Sure he was peaceful and liked black people and played the sax. Who cares? Clintons presidency set the stage for the 9/11 attacks. Even after the trade center bombing, the cole bombing, the kenyan embassy bombing, etc. he did nothing to stop terrorism around the world. He even claims he had two chances to take bin Laden as a prisoner but he did not take it because he was afraid "everyone would think im obsessed with getting bin Laden". Oh, so one man's popularity over 300 million people's safety, ay? Carter was equally bad because his administration allowed a 30% inflation rate and a near economic collapse, as well as sold the Panama canal. Carter should have never left the peanut farm.

2. Hoover. Depression.
3. Besides these there arent too many more. There were many that did nothing, but the preceeding three did something, just not the right thing.

Roosevelt?

Washington.

It had to take some serious balls to be able to hold the nation together and fight for independence during a time when the nation was very much the disunited states of america. He also managed to do so without joining a politcal party and gave the nation great advise in his farewell address to stay out of alliances. I salute you :salute:

Second would be Lincoln, again, for preserving the union in a time of sectionalism.
I think the greatest thing he did was to step down from power when his term ended. Pretty much every other "democratic" revolution in history, the leaders usually became tyrants.

I'd vote for Pedro any day! :lol: