www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=news_history&Number=1294232&view=
Interesting article, fwiw.
Interesting article, fwiw.
Best and Worst Presidents of the USA
- Thread starter Master Capper
- Start date
william jefferson clinton
william jefferson clinton
may have been rated higher than the mid teens if he had acted like he was older than his mid teens...
william jefferson clinton
may have been rated higher than the mid teens if he had acted like he was older than his mid teens...
Thoughts on Andrew Jackson being your top-ranked president and his complete massacre of specific Native Americans??????...just curious, not trying to be a dick
This is easy:
#1. Martin Van Buren.
Toss up for #2 between Chester Arthur, Zachary Taylor and James Polk.
Eddie
#1. Martin Van Buren.
Toss up for #2 between Chester Arthur, Zachary Taylor and James Polk.
Eddie
Last edited:
I think it is ridiculous to rate Bush as one of the worst Presidents after 3 years in office. What warrants that ranking, lets be honest here. What other president has had to deal with what he has had to (9/11).
Economy? It was on the way down when he took office... and I think you MUST take into consideration the effect of 9/11 on the economy, how could any economy prosper in such a situation, with people afraid to fly and what not... (Plus I think Presidents get too much credit when the economy is good, and too much blame when it is bad, it goes in cycles...JMO).
People accuse him of lying, prove it. (I hate to bring him into this arguement, cause I know I may get slammed, but we know for a fact Clinton lied, do we have proof that Bush lied, or is it opinion?) Did he get questionable inteligence, maybe.
I just think it is way too early to be judging his presidency, he may have another 5 years to mold his legacy. And even if you did want to judge him so far, I don't think you could put him on the worst list. I'm not saying he belongs on the Best, maybe he will end up there, or maybe when it's all said and done I will agree and say he was one of the worst, but I think you need to take into consideration the major events that happen during a Pres. term and think how they could have changed things.
Economy? It was on the way down when he took office... and I think you MUST take into consideration the effect of 9/11 on the economy, how could any economy prosper in such a situation, with people afraid to fly and what not... (Plus I think Presidents get too much credit when the economy is good, and too much blame when it is bad, it goes in cycles...JMO).
People accuse him of lying, prove it. (I hate to bring him into this arguement, cause I know I may get slammed, but we know for a fact Clinton lied, do we have proof that Bush lied, or is it opinion?) Did he get questionable inteligence, maybe.
I just think it is way too early to be judging his presidency, he may have another 5 years to mold his legacy. And even if you did want to judge him so far, I don't think you could put him on the worst list. I'm not saying he belongs on the Best, maybe he will end up there, or maybe when it's all said and done I will agree and say he was one of the worst, but I think you need to take into consideration the major events that happen during a Pres. term and think how they could have changed things.
Heavy hitter, yes you are right about Jackson and the erradication of indians (seminole I believe) and most historians would tend to agree with you as Jackson is usually ranked 9th thru 11th.
Blitz,
Sorry can't agree with you on George Bush, I commend him for what he did on 9/11 but dont you think that nearly all the past presidents would of reacted the same way? I think Bush lands on the worst list because he has in fact misled the general public in the sense that he promised to be a uniter and not a divider and at this point the country is more divided at any point in US history except the civil war. He has had all the cards in his favor with the senate and house being in his favor but he has polarized the country in rapid fashion. Also, what he has done to the deficit's is a huge risk to future generations, and although he may not have lied (which I believe he did), I think the general public has lost faith and trust in his leadership and with whom he has surrounded himself with. You must admit even if you do not consider these lies they were not truths: 1) when running against Gore he left blank the question "were you ever arrested", now we both know that he knew that he had been, so would this not be a lie? 2) I seriously doubt that he had bad information on Iraq, too many others were coming out saying the opposite and they were dismissed as being insane. 3) I think that he has fudged his milatary record, hell if I was in his situation I would of taken all the advantages that were available. When only one person can recall ever seeing him at the base in Bama over a years period then there is something wrong there. As I stated in another thread I could actually tolerate GW but I think Cheney is a crook that is using the system to go reward himself and his pals. All in all, we can have our own opinions on this subject but I just posted this thread for a thought provoking theme for President's day.
Blitz,
Sorry can't agree with you on George Bush, I commend him for what he did on 9/11 but dont you think that nearly all the past presidents would of reacted the same way? I think Bush lands on the worst list because he has in fact misled the general public in the sense that he promised to be a uniter and not a divider and at this point the country is more divided at any point in US history except the civil war. He has had all the cards in his favor with the senate and house being in his favor but he has polarized the country in rapid fashion. Also, what he has done to the deficit's is a huge risk to future generations, and although he may not have lied (which I believe he did), I think the general public has lost faith and trust in his leadership and with whom he has surrounded himself with. You must admit even if you do not consider these lies they were not truths: 1) when running against Gore he left blank the question "were you ever arrested", now we both know that he knew that he had been, so would this not be a lie? 2) I seriously doubt that he had bad information on Iraq, too many others were coming out saying the opposite and they were dismissed as being insane. 3) I think that he has fudged his milatary record, hell if I was in his situation I would of taken all the advantages that were available. When only one person can recall ever seeing him at the base in Bama over a years period then there is something wrong there. As I stated in another thread I could actually tolerate GW but I think Cheney is a crook that is using the system to go reward himself and his pals. All in all, we can have our own opinions on this subject but I just posted this thread for a thought provoking theme for President's day.
Master Capper said:
I don't think you can say nearly all Presidents would have reacted in the same way. If you remember, Bush was very patient after 9/11. He could of started bombing the chit out of places on 9/12 and most of the country would have stood and applauded. Instead he waited for proof of who was responsible and till he had a force together to give the proper response. He got permission from Pakistan to fly over and got some help from them. I think a lot of people forget these things and say Bush just wants to Bomb places. How many Presidents would of had this kind of patience... How many Presidents would have just started bombing Aspirin factories or anything else in sight in the Middle East on 9/12 just to look good and make the American people feel good.
If you remember, Bush started to take a little heat after a while because he was so patient. This is not the picture a lot of people want to paint of President Bush, they want you to believe he is some Cowboy who can't wait to shoot at anything...
Blitz:
"He could have started bombing the chit out of places on 9/12 and most of the country would have stood and applauded." Kinda shows how different you and I think about this country.
Instead he waited a year and one-half and invaded another country under false pretenses and we have all but forgotten about the murderers who were behind those whacks that flew the planes into those buildings. By the way, where is Osama Bin Lately?
Pretty good diversion, huh. Not only one of the worst, but a felon. Impeaching this guy aint' enough. 25 to life is more appropriate. Oh no, this guy is a major cowboy letting the evil one (Cheney) call the shots. Dangerous times.
Ed
"He could have started bombing the chit out of places on 9/12 and most of the country would have stood and applauded." Kinda shows how different you and I think about this country.
Instead he waited a year and one-half and invaded another country under false pretenses and we have all but forgotten about the murderers who were behind those whacks that flew the planes into those buildings. By the way, where is Osama Bin Lately?
Pretty good diversion, huh. Not only one of the worst, but a felon. Impeaching this guy aint' enough. 25 to life is more appropriate. Oh no, this guy is a major cowboy letting the evil one (Cheney) call the shots. Dangerous times.
Ed
I would hope he did not start on 9/12. Where with the info we had start. Saudi, Iraq, Iraq. Some how we went with Afgan. But we did wait a few days for them to take credit. Next step is planning. And as Paul Harvey says we now know the rest of the stories. Some true, Some not. Some the truth stretched to fit the cause. So off to Iraq at last we went. To make it a better place. And of course to pickup those WMD that Chenny and Rummy said they new where they were. Well I guess they told Bush a lie. And Iraq I hope some day can be a better place. Right now it's a hell hole with killing going on everyday. So no improvement. And jobs back here are not growing. And what they hope to do about jobs gets down graded every other month. So no one seems to have ahandled on whats really going on. So I agree give Bush a chance to be rated after another year or so. But right now he is in the slipping lower area.
The Worst President?
Liberals claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war.
They complain about his prosecution of it. They point out that
Iraq didn't attack the U.S. and we shouldn't have went to war
with them.
One liberal recently claimed Bush was the worst president in
U.S. history.
Most of these claims come from liberals in the Democratic party.
Being an Independent I decided to take a look at history and see
if using that criteria who else could be called the "worst" president.
FDR ( a democrat) led us into World War II against Germany, Italy, and Japan.
Neither Germany or Italy ever attacked us: Japan did.
From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year.
That's 1 Democratic President, 4 years and 450,000 American lives
Harry Truman (a democrat) finished that war and started one in Korea, North
Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average
of 18,333 per year.
That's 1 Democratic President, 3 years, and 55,000 American lives.
John F. Kennedy (a democrat) started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam
never attacked us.
Lyndon B. Johnson (a democrat) turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975,
58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year. Finally in the 1970's
Richard Nixon (a republican) pulled us out of Vietnam.
That's 2 Democratic Presidents, 1 Republican President, 13 years, and 58,000
American lives.
Bill Clinton went to war in Bosnia WITHOUT UN or French consent, Bosnia
never attacked us.
The Clinton administration was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter
three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple
occasions.
In the two years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has liberated
two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors
in Lybia, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured Sadaam
Hussein, who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.
We lost about 600 soldiers, an average of 200 a year. Bush did all this
abroad while not allowing another terrorist attack at home.
That's 1 Republican President, 2 1/2 years, and about 600 American lives.
Then the Democrats complained about how long the war on terror is taking,
but...
It took less time to take Iraq than it TOOK JANET RENO TO TAKE THE
BRANCH DAVIDIAN C0MPOUND! THAT WAS A 51 DAY OPERATION!
We've been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for LESS TIME THAN
IT TOOK HILLARY CLINTON TO LOCATE THE ROSE LAW FIRM RECORDS IN HER OWN OFFICE!
It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy
the Medina Republican Guard than it took TED KENNEDY TO CALL THE POLICE AND GIVE
HIMSELF UP AFTER HE HAD AN ACCIDENT WHILE DRUNK AND SANK HIS OLDSMOBILE IN
THE CHAPPAQUIDIK RIVER KILLING THE YOUNG LADY WHO WAS HIS PASSENGER!
And Finally...
IT TOOK LESS TIME FOR THE U.S. MILITARY TO TAKE IRAQ THAN IT DID TO COUNT THE
VOTES IN FLORIDA IN 2000!!!!
But for some reason the Democrats didn't complain about how long any of that took! Hmmm.....
Liberals claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war.
They complain about his prosecution of it. They point out that
Iraq didn't attack the U.S. and we shouldn't have went to war
with them.
One liberal recently claimed Bush was the worst president in
U.S. history.
Most of these claims come from liberals in the Democratic party.
Being an Independent I decided to take a look at history and see
if using that criteria who else could be called the "worst" president.
FDR ( a democrat) led us into World War II against Germany, Italy, and Japan.
Neither Germany or Italy ever attacked us: Japan did.
From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year.
That's 1 Democratic President, 4 years and 450,000 American lives
Harry Truman (a democrat) finished that war and started one in Korea, North
Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average
of 18,333 per year.
That's 1 Democratic President, 3 years, and 55,000 American lives.
John F. Kennedy (a democrat) started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam
never attacked us.
Lyndon B. Johnson (a democrat) turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975,
58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year. Finally in the 1970's
Richard Nixon (a republican) pulled us out of Vietnam.
That's 2 Democratic Presidents, 1 Republican President, 13 years, and 58,000
American lives.
Bill Clinton went to war in Bosnia WITHOUT UN or French consent, Bosnia
never attacked us.
The Clinton administration was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter
three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple
occasions.
In the two years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has liberated
two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors
in Lybia, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured Sadaam
Hussein, who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.
We lost about 600 soldiers, an average of 200 a year. Bush did all this
abroad while not allowing another terrorist attack at home.
That's 1 Republican President, 2 1/2 years, and about 600 American lives.
Then the Democrats complained about how long the war on terror is taking,
but...
It took less time to take Iraq than it TOOK JANET RENO TO TAKE THE
BRANCH DAVIDIAN C0MPOUND! THAT WAS A 51 DAY OPERATION!
We've been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for LESS TIME THAN
IT TOOK HILLARY CLINTON TO LOCATE THE ROSE LAW FIRM RECORDS IN HER OWN OFFICE!
It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy
the Medina Republican Guard than it took TED KENNEDY TO CALL THE POLICE AND GIVE
HIMSELF UP AFTER HE HAD AN ACCIDENT WHILE DRUNK AND SANK HIS OLDSMOBILE IN
THE CHAPPAQUIDIK RIVER KILLING THE YOUNG LADY WHO WAS HIS PASSENGER!
And Finally...
IT TOOK LESS TIME FOR THE U.S. MILITARY TO TAKE IRAQ THAN IT DID TO COUNT THE
VOTES IN FLORIDA IN 2000!!!!
But for some reason the Democrats didn't complain about how long any of that took! Hmmm.....
Senor,
While your stats are correct what you are omitting is that none of these wars were based on false pretenses as the Bush led one is:
1. Roosevelt
He stayed out of the war until Pearl Harbor was bombed by no means were we the aggresor in this battle. Another point on this is that in WW2 we were also defending countries from the axis powers as they were taking them over, Iraq was not taking anyone over in 03.
2. Vietnam and Korea
Both of these were put in place to stop the spread of communism as at that point in history we believed in the domino theory of country by country falling into communism until eventually they over took the USA. Again though these were not started on false pretenses.
3. Bosnia
Was a humanitarian issue as races of people were being eliminated, I think if Iraq would of been presented in this fashion instead of on the lie of WMD then we would of had no problem getting other countries to lend a hand.
4. Osama
If you want to blame someone for stopping the US from going after Osama at the point in time your talking about then you need to point the finger at Tom Delay as he was completely against Clinton using any milatary, he claimed Clinton was just doing this to throw off the Monica issue.
5. Liberated two countries
What two are you speaking of? Afghanastan is far from liberated as just two weeks ago a city was taken over by one of the warlords. This country has been at war for over 200 years and will never be liberated it is a whole different world. If your second country being liberated is Iraq then it sure doesnt look good for future countries to be liberated as the whole country is a mess even the southern part of Iraq which has been peaceful for years.
6. Numbers of lives lost
Your numbers are quite distorted as WW2 was a much larger war and we were battling three other countries. Korea and Vietnam also had the backing and assistance of China and USSR but I agree that we were wrong in going there just like Iraz.
7. Tyrant
I dont buy this tyrant theory we are there to secure the resources for our future use, if we were so concerned with tyrants then why didnt we go 90 miles south of Miami and remove one of the most brutal dictators in history in Castro? The answer is that they have limited natrual resources and thus we could really care.
While your stats are correct what you are omitting is that none of these wars were based on false pretenses as the Bush led one is:
1. Roosevelt
He stayed out of the war until Pearl Harbor was bombed by no means were we the aggresor in this battle. Another point on this is that in WW2 we were also defending countries from the axis powers as they were taking them over, Iraq was not taking anyone over in 03.
2. Vietnam and Korea
Both of these were put in place to stop the spread of communism as at that point in history we believed in the domino theory of country by country falling into communism until eventually they over took the USA. Again though these were not started on false pretenses.
3. Bosnia
Was a humanitarian issue as races of people were being eliminated, I think if Iraq would of been presented in this fashion instead of on the lie of WMD then we would of had no problem getting other countries to lend a hand.
4. Osama
If you want to blame someone for stopping the US from going after Osama at the point in time your talking about then you need to point the finger at Tom Delay as he was completely against Clinton using any milatary, he claimed Clinton was just doing this to throw off the Monica issue.
5. Liberated two countries
What two are you speaking of? Afghanastan is far from liberated as just two weeks ago a city was taken over by one of the warlords. This country has been at war for over 200 years and will never be liberated it is a whole different world. If your second country being liberated is Iraq then it sure doesnt look good for future countries to be liberated as the whole country is a mess even the southern part of Iraq which has been peaceful for years.
6. Numbers of lives lost
Your numbers are quite distorted as WW2 was a much larger war and we were battling three other countries. Korea and Vietnam also had the backing and assistance of China and USSR but I agree that we were wrong in going there just like Iraz.
7. Tyrant
I dont buy this tyrant theory we are there to secure the resources for our future use, if we were so concerned with tyrants then why didnt we go 90 miles south of Miami and remove one of the most brutal dictators in history in Castro? The answer is that they have limited natrual resources and thus we could really care.
Reagon is by far #1...I just visited the Reagon Library and saw
first hand a 10 foot section of the Berlin Wall...the complete
and undeniable victory of the Cold War...unfortunately, these
types of people only come along once in a blue moon.
FDR....#2....only history buffs who know anything about the
GREAT DEPRESSION can appreciate what this great man did.
ABE LINCOLN.....Probably should be #1 but I am living and he
is dead.
No one else even comes close.
first hand a 10 foot section of the Berlin Wall...the complete
and undeniable victory of the Cold War...unfortunately, these
types of people only come along once in a blue moon.
FDR....#2....only history buffs who know anything about the
GREAT DEPRESSION can appreciate what this great man did.
ABE LINCOLN.....Probably should be #1 but I am living and he
is dead.
No one else even comes close.
salty dog is exactly right Reagan is definitely #1 for all the reasons gw gave and more.
mc quote "JFK is in the top ten in most historians ratings of the presidents, I dont rank him because he just didnt have enough time to implement everything he wanted to do. Reagan, was a good president but was brutal in economics."
It's funny you should say this as JFK economic plan and stance on taxes was almost exactly that of Reagan's. If JFK would have lived he would have endorced Reagans plan, just listen to JFK speeches on taxes and the economy. your hatred for bush definitely blinds your objectiveness.
mc quote "JFK is in the top ten in most historians ratings of the presidents, I dont rank him because he just didnt have enough time to implement everything he wanted to do. Reagan, was a good president but was brutal in economics."
It's funny you should say this as JFK economic plan and stance on taxes was almost exactly that of Reagan's. If JFK would have lived he would have endorced Reagans plan, just listen to JFK speeches on taxes and the economy. your hatred for bush definitely blinds your objectiveness.
