joespaniel
Unescorted Settler
There is alot to be said about the ideas pushed by Wilson, and the impact they had later in the 20th century.
He was deffinately ahead of his time.
He was deffinately ahead of his time.
Greatest President
- Thread starter knowltok2
- Start date
CurtSibling
ENEMY ACE™
Originally posted by skywalker
Sorry, Curt, I didn't notice that the part of your post that talked about Carter was a quote. Forgiven? No?
Forgiven!
And excuse my evil words to you.
I prefer to make allies and not foes!
Let's put this mis-understanding in the past.
knowltok2
Deity
Hey! I accepted the criticism for leaving some presidents out. I was on the phone and rushing this. However I do not accept the criticism for putting on people like Clinton, Bush, or Reagan. I personally would not vote for these presidents, but many of you have. In fact there is only one President on the list with no votes at this time, and even that is a significant (In CFC terms) piece of information.
The purpose of the poll was to get meaningful information, and to spark lively conversation. I am glad to see that this has happened. Removing names from it would only lead to useless side conversations, and a more predetermined result. It also smacks of totalitarian voting practices, but I'll leave that be.
Some of you (You know who you are) need to realize that the entire world doesn't think like you do, and that that is a good thing. You should also try to understand where another viewpoint is coming from instead of just blasting it out of hand because it is different than yours.
Arrrrgghhh!!!! Rant over.
The purpose of the poll was to get meaningful information, and to spark lively conversation. I am glad to see that this has happened. Removing names from it would only lead to useless side conversations, and a more predetermined result. It also smacks of totalitarian voting practices, but I'll leave that be.
Some of you (You know who you are) need to realize that the entire world doesn't think like you do, and that that is a good thing. You should also try to understand where another viewpoint is coming from instead of just blasting it out of hand because it is different than yours.
Arrrrgghhh!!!! Rant over.
MrPresident
Anglo-Saxon Liberal
I am sorry but I have to take issue with this viewpoint. It is slighty worrying that people like you think it necessary to write this post. I think everyone in the entire world knows that different people have different opinions. However that should never stop someone from trying to convince the other of the logic and correctness of their agrument. That is the purpose of a debate. Maybe some people haven't developed their debating skills as much as others but that doesn't mean they are "blasting" them. It is just a different style of debating. I think it is you who needs to realise that people have different ways of tackling different problems and they shouldn't be attacked because of it. Isn't it ironic that you complain about the very thing you are doing.
knowltok2
Deity
I am attacking people's views that choices should be removed from a poll. Why? Because they don't agree with them? It isn't a different style of debating, it is a way of limiting choice. The poll is a method for expression of opinion. many people have expressed their opinion that Clinton or Reagan were the best presidents. How does it serve rational discussion to advocate taking those choices away from them. Perhaps I should have constructed the poll and left Clinton out because I don't like him. Not very open of me, not exactly a good way to get a mix of opinions, but this is exactly what was advocated.
As for different ways of tackling problems, not every way is right. I could have simply posted disparaging remarks about individuals parantage and sexual deviations, but just because it is a different way of tackling what I see as a problem, doesn't make it right.
As for different ways of tackling problems, not every way is right. I could have simply posted disparaging remarks about individuals parantage and sexual deviations, but just because it is a different way of tackling what I see as a problem, doesn't make it right.
MrPresident
Anglo-Saxon Liberal
Ah but who determines what is a right way and what is a wrong way? What you may find acceptable someone else could have disgraceful. Back on topic, how can anyone vote for Clinton? What did he do as President that was so great? Washington was the first President and set the standard for the rest. Lincoln saved the nation from separation and freed America from the hypocrisy of slavery. FDR gave the country hope during a time of depression. JFK had a vision for a better America. Reegan led the country through a difficult time to become the World's only superpower. What did Clinton do that was so great? By the way America didn't "win" the cold war, Russia lost it. Remember despite the CIA spending $1 billion on observing the Soviet Union they did not predict its collapse.
knowltok2
Deity
1. For this issue and most others, no one determines what is right and what is wrong (I am leaving out the site's juristiction since I don't think any of its rules have been broken). An analogy would be to ask who determines the right way and the wrong way to advance a political cause. 'The winner' is about the only answer you can give, and that means that ahead of time, no one determines right and wrong. I do have my views of right and wrong though, and while I am not going to impose them on anyone on this forum, I reserve the right to point out when I think someone has transgressed my view. In this case I think there are several right ways, and several wrong ways to make a point in this thread. Stating that certain names should be removed from consideration is, in my opinion, one of the wrong ways.
2. I agree with you on Clinton. I do not think he comes anywhere near being the US's greatest President. Being smart enough not to screw up the economy is not greatness in my book. Staring into the camera and lying to me in my living room is not a mark of greatness either. Tell me and the reporter that it is none of our damn business, but don't lie to my face.
3. The USSR did lose the cold war, but the CIA's failure to predict the colapse doesn't mean that the US didn't win it. It was fought since 1945, and a lot of blood, sweat, and tears went into it from many different nations. The wars, the spending, the research, the rhetoric, the propaganda, the diplomacy, and a host of other factors played major roles. I would argue that the US and its allies did in fact win the cold war. Without active resistance, would the Soviet Union have colapsed when it did, and in the relatively peaceful manner in which it did?
VoodooAce
Emperor
I didn't vote for Clinton, but if the question was who was best in the last 35 years, then I would. He cleaned up (or didn't get in the way of those that did the cleaning if you prefer) the economic mess made by Reagans "Cut taxes and spend the money we don't have" policies. Bush the Elder's tax increase was all but an admission that those policies were a crock.
Speaking of which, at least nobody's voted for Bush the Elder.
Richard III
Duke of Gloucester
James Polk. Got elected with a two campaign promises - to bring Texas and Oregon into the Union, and #2 a promise to achieve both in one term and not run again, instead of spitting out mealy-mouthed stuff about how "our work is not yet done."
And he kept both promises.
If only America had more like him.
Although I would definitely tie FDR and Lincoln at second.
And he kept both promises.
If only America had more like him.
Although I would definitely tie FDR and Lincoln at second.
Archbob
Ancient CFC Guardian
I'd have to go Lincoln, takes a man of much skill to be president during a civil war.
Clinton was actually a great president, he got the country going in the right way and he did his best he could in foreign relations. He really didn't do any thing that bad. I mean, name one president that didn't have a mistress?
JFK, FDR? I don't think so.
Clinton was actually a great president, he got the country going in the right way and he did his best he could in foreign relations. He really didn't do any thing that bad. I mean, name one president that didn't have a mistress?
JFK, FDR? I don't think so.
MrPresident
Anglo-Saxon Liberal
Yes but he didn't he start a war with Mexico for terrority. I think that this goes against why America was created. Plus I bet most Americans wouldn't even know Polk had been President and doesn't that show how great he was?
Greatest is not bestowed on those who didn't do anything wrong. I don't think his foreign relations were all that great, didn't he spend a lot of energy on Israel situation? The economy was hardly saved by Clinton there was a general world boom. Anyway the Federal Reserve have as much to do with the economy as the US government. Also Lincoln never had a mistress.
First of all I don't think America had anything to do with the peaceful manner of the collapse. Secondly, I do think it would have happened anyway and probably sooner. The Soviet Union collapsed due to many reasons but not because America had nuclear missions pointed at the Kremlin. I think it will be the same with China, the people wanted change.
Richard III
Duke of Gloucester
Most Americans don't know that the Emancipation Proclamation didn't actually free any slaves under American control either, but that doesn't make Lincoln any less great. And this is a forum for CIVFANATIC opinion, not American opinion! The fact that he is not on the five dollar bill makes him all the better choice for it. My point is that I think too much is made of the "known" president and not enough of the "sound" president, which FDR and Lincoln could also be called. People were begging Polk, the original "dark horse," to run for a second term. But he didn't. His public service was done - he wasn't in it for the kicks of staying in office, or because he felt "I want to lead" just because as Bush Senior did.
PS - about the war thing, without in any way attempting to insult my american friends, your view is a little odd. The war started as a border dispute over whether the territory north of the Rio Grande was Texan or not. An important point, since Texas had been incorporated into the Union, and everyone wanted to know just what Texas actually was to set the boundary. Since Mexico had always been opposed to Texan integration into the Union anyway, my personal view is that the "Mexican War" was inevitable, although Polk certainly welcomed the opportunity that Mexican anger provided. But even if you take the view that Polk was nothing but a malevolent aggressor, the argument that "taking land by force goes against why America was treated" is a little odd, given that several of America's wars or campaigns fought in its formative years were fought with such a purpose in mind, among them:
-The Revolutionary War's northern and western campaigns, which aimed to seize the Quebec and maritime colonies, as well as Indian Territory in Ohio and Kentucky. One of the most important British provocations that brought America to the brink was the decision to forbid settlement on the other side of the appalachians, and a revolutionary war aim was to reverse that decision.
-The War along the Ohio (name escapes me) to capture the Ohio basin from Indians (if someone can remind me, it was the one where they used "American Legions" in place of a standing army)
-The War of 1812, started for several reasons, but key among them was a desire by the "War Hawk" bloc of western states to seize more Indian Territory and annex Canada.
I could go on - Jackson's war against the Cherokee, etc.
R.III
knowltok2
Deity
I for one don't care a whit about the mistress thing for his job performance. That he lied to the American people point blank is what bothers me. Between perjury in court and saying that he did not have sexual relations with Monica destroys his credibility. Greatness would have been looking into the camera and telling me that it is none of my damn business.
I am not saying that America did anything to make it peaceful per say, but that it could well have been much worse. If the US and its allies had never stood up to Soviet machinations, would it have colapsed when it did? The cold war certainly doesn't present a good example of clear policy and consistant action, but I don't think that the Western efforts and sacrifices can be dismissed so easily. If you comepletely removed all of those efforts, I would contend that there would still be a Soviet Union.
MrPresident
Anglo-Saxon Liberal
Now I am not sure what you mean by standing up to Soviet machinations. If you mean the Korean and Vietnam wars then they were not against the Soviets but against Communism. So can you make this comments clear and ideally give examples.
Yes I know America has fought wars to gain terrority, although the 1812 war was not entirely to do with that, it still goes against the basic tradition. America was created because the people wanted representative government. Other words the people wanted to be able to govern themselves. So imperial thoughts of conquering other nations and ruling their people obviously goes against this. A lot of America, as you said, was won in wars, although afterwards they were legalised through compensation and treaties. However much of this land was thought to be American anyway, for example one of the original colonies (I think Virginia) claimed all the land from the Alantic to the Pacific. The Native Americans were not treated as a nation and so expasion into their terrority was justified at the time. However Mexico was a separate nation and recognised as such, so to start a war with it and then take some of its terrority can be considered Empire building. By the war Texas was a separate nation for about 10 years (I think) before it joined the USA why wasn't its borders sorted out then?
knowltok2
Deity
I know that those conflicts weren't against the Soviet Union directly, but the Soviet Union was involved by proxy, supplying training and material. The same was true in reverse case in Afganistan. America supplied some of the arms to confront the Soviets. Without the surface to air missles it is quite possible that the Soviets would have succeeded. Their failure in Afganistan has often been cited as a significant factor in the collapse.1
The Berlin Airlift and Cuban Missle crisis also come to mind. This topic is rife with what if's, but my underlying point is that the West did play a significant part in achieving the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Centrifuge
Chieftain
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2001
- Messages
- 76
I voted for Lincoln, but personally my favorite president (of the more modern era) is Harry Truman. The man had guts. Many very difficult decisions were thrust upon him (ie. the A-Bomb, the firing of Macarthur, and the creation of Israel.) All of these decisions changed the history of the world in one form or another, good or bad, but it was Truman who was forced to decide. For a man who didn't want to be president to begin with, these were very tough decisions and he made them in a very gutsy fashion..
I voted Reagan. I hated the guy when he first came to office, but he convinced me to turn from a Democrat into a Republican. He dealt very wisely in foreign and domestic affairs both, and his wise dealing with communism deserves a lot of the credit for bringing down the Iron Curtain peacefully. His "hands-off" policy with the budget was the right thing to do, holding true to the spirit of the U.S. Constitution. Fiscal policy under his administration brought us out of the stagflation era and into a long bull market.
Washington and Lincoln both, of course, are popular choices, but what did they DO?? I see them more as ordinary men in extraordinary situations than anything.
As a side note, I'll also point out that the ABC poll included George W in their poll, whereas this one you have to vote "Other". That kind of skews the tallies some. I'm assuming it's because GW hasn't finished a term yet.
Washington and Lincoln both, of course, are popular choices, but what did they DO?? I see them more as ordinary men in extraordinary situations than anything.
As a side note, I'll also point out that the ABC poll included George W in their poll, whereas this one you have to vote "Other". That kind of skews the tallies some. I'm assuming it's because GW hasn't finished a term yet.
knowltok2
Deity
I would argue that any man who could have been king and turned it down would not be ordinary. Washington also set many of the precidents that are used today regarding the presidency, and did a very good job all things considered. Lincoln managed the ship of state during the most difficult time a nation can endure, and did so quite successfully. He also instituted a feeling of reconcilliation, that while cut short due to his death, helped heal the wounds of the civil war. It is not inconcievable that with an 'ordinary' man in such circumstances the US could have the same type of problems today that Northern Ireland or the West Bank have.
I didn't see the actual poll, so didn't know tat GWB was on their list. It does strike me as too soon to make that type of call, but anyone who wants to is free to post their selection as many people have done with other Presidents.
VoodooAce
Emperor
Isn't that interesting. He changed me from a Republican to a Democrat.
Please. The USSR was toast years before Reagan even became President. They were, as I mentioned in another post, a decaying carcass by the early 80's.
And, as far as Reagan's fiscal "policy" and this bull market you mentioned, all he did was spend money he didn't have, which looked good for the economy at the time, but was irresponsible and caused a recession and much trouble.
For instance, if I go out and borrow $250,000 and start spending it on **** I want/need, it sure looks good for me at the time. "Woo Hoo, look at all this cash, and I'm a spending ass mutha." Problem is I don't REALLY have that money, and when the bill comes due 'future Voodoo' is going to be pretty bitter with 'past Voodoo' for being so irresponsible.
No, its cuz Duh-bya's an idiot.
Did he actually get votes in the poll?????? Come on, guys....who here would ACTUALLY vote for duhbya?
knowltok2
Deity
Originally posted by VoodooAce
No, its cuz Duh-bya's an idiot.
Did he actually get votes in the poll?????? Come on, guys....who here would ACTUALLY vote for duhbya?
It is way too soon in my opinion, but given current information it is not inconcievable that in 20 years if events transpire in a favorable way, some people may think so. (I know, this thought makes you shudder Voodoo) FDR is the most recent President in my mind that can even come close to getting consideration for "Greatest President"
I do find it interesting that only with the passage of much time does partisanship fall away. I would ask who the most recent President of the opposite party was that, given hindsight, any of us would consider voting over the two most recent candidates. So if you lean republican, what mostrecent democratic president would you have voted for over Bush? Vice versa for the democrats. Who would you vote for out of history as opposed to Al Gore?
Mine would be FDR.
