Which of these presidents do you consider was the best for the US, and if you could which one would you wish would be become president again if those term limits were lifted? :confused:

Thomas Jefferson

Michael

I don't want to be a prick, but can we all explain a little why? I really find it rather interesting.

Carter. Nobody owned him. He had a brain. Iran's revolution and Desert One had nothing to do with Carter other than bad luck. Carter delayed the conflict now coming to a boil in the Mideast by at least 20 years.

I also voted Carter (I am not a American) but I know that Carter was a true democrat. He was the democrat that understood the issues of the workers of the US. The problem with the Carter administration as hype mentions is that of circumstance, his presidency was a victim of circumstance. He had some pretty forward looking proposals in the US at the time. For instance if his fuel efficentcy standards were to stay in place the US wouldn't have had to import any Middle Eastern oil! The world today would be markedly safer then that of the one we live in today. The militarization that followed Carter under Reagan was a bad omen for the future of man. The Reagan era is basically the pre-cursor to all the ills that the US suffers today, deficits, debts, militarization, and the key players all came from that administration. The religious right found it's voice in the moral realist which was Reagan. I think detente would have happened under Carter, and a generally more peaceful world.The Cold War would have ended eariler, and we wouldn't be facing the vacumm that we face today in a uni-polar world. Carter would have been a better president, but that is only my opinion.

Enough idiocy already. So Carter is the best just because he is a democrate? Give me fricken break.

Carter is the most incompetant president in history of US. Most of his domestic policies were complete failures. US experienced doubled digit unemployment rate, inflation, and interest rate during his watch. His international policies are without any backbone. If he is that good, he would have been reelected.

US experienced doubled digit unemployment rate, inflation, and interest rate during his watch

Which were inheirted from the former administrations economic policies. Also the mistake you make is that you assume Carter could have done much, the oil crises of the 70's was totally out of Carter's hands. The Kenyesian economy collapsed well before Carter ever came to power.

His international policies are without any backbone.

That is the problem with current American policy, backbone with no clear cut objective behind it. You must understand that Carter inheirted a broken country after Vietnam, he was going to plunge the country into another war. The US did not have the appetite for another war.

Also Joeman, instead of attack Carter can you tell us who you voted for. I mean that was the whole point of this thread.

P.S: So Carter is the best just because he is a democrate?

Demohttp://www.ribbonrail.com/art/images/crate.gif

Sorry I didn't know he was crate...

Enough idiocy already ;) :D

Carter. Very nice man. Very bad president.

I voted 'other'. Washington specifically. No parties to affiliatiate with. A modern-day Cincinnatus. Stepped down after his second term, even though many encouraged him to run again (and he would have easily won), setting a tradition that would carry until FDR. Had no precedent to base his presidency on, literally had to wing it, and had to preside during arguably the most critical period in US history, outside perhaps the Civil War.

Was Carter really that bad of a president?

1969-1974: Prosperity runs out of steam as inflation takes hold, soon to be compounded by the oil shock. Nixon's attempt at wage and price controls fails to tame inflation. Amid continuing social upheaval, the administration is caught in the Watergate scandal, which leads to Nixon's investigation, impeachment, and resignation. The Vietnam War winds down, but leaves profound scars.

1975-1980: The brief Ford administration is powerless to control inflation. Soon unemployment is rising as well, signaling the exhaustion of Keynesian policies. The Carter administration faces an energy crisis and mounting foreign policy challenges. The protracted hostage crisis at the U.S. embassy in Iran compounds the national malaise and undermines the presidency.

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

1974-1976: Inflation and the energy crisis drive up industrial costs, and unemployment begins to grow in tandem, resulting in "stagflation." The Democratic Congress employs Keynesian measures -- public spending on infrastructure and local projects to stimulate the economy -- but to little effect. The crisis weakens corporations, but also communities. Emergency federal loans avert a New York City bankruptcy.

1977-1980: Stagflation worsens; consumer and investor confidence plummet. Tax cuts are ineffective to awaken the economy, as are Carter's programs, which rely on voluntary wage and price restraint. Inflation surges; the Federal Reserve drives interest rates above 20 percent to remove money from circulation. Deregulation begins amid crisis as price and entry restrictions are removed for airlines and trucking.


As one can plainly see Carter may have done a little too little to help. The economic malaise of the country was not his fault. It was an inherited economic and political disaster from the previous administration. Carter was merely a victim of forces greater then the US, from oil to foreign unease. Reagan initiated the de-industrialization of the United States which today is starting to show its troublesome head.

George Washington
He set the standard that those who followed had to live up to.

I heard a rumor, not knowing if it is true. Something about George Washington being a King, and he turned it down?

I believe it was Adams who suggested Washington be called king, which others, including Washington, immediately squelched, knowing that wouldn't fly. But when the British Parliament decide after Yorktown to let the colonies go George III had at first threatened to abdicate, then quickly changed his mind, because he assumed that Washington would declare himself a dictator (as he would have and assumed anyone else would too), and the American people would decide they were better off back within the empire. When someone later told him that Washington was going to resign his post as CinC of the Continental army, George III said if he did that he would "be a great man indeed." Truly a CIncinnatus.

Little known fact. In 1776 the Americans had the highest standard of living of any people in the West.

West being Americas? Or West being "the West"?

West being the West. Europe. Americas. Same as today.

What is that based on? I would imagine records were not well kept or well done. I know that US GDP per capita did not exceed that of the UK until 1903. So what is it based on?

Carter. Very nice man. Very bad president.


The best president ever was FDR, on both foreign and domestic affairs he is the benchmark.

What is that based on? I would imagine records were not well kept or well done. I know that US GDP per capita did not exceed that of the UK until 1903. So what is it based on?

I honestly can't remember the original text I read that in, but I know it was based on somewhat on opportunities and land available for citizens, resources, taxation, and other things, as compared to citizens in England and the rest of Europe. I did do a quick Google search to see if I could find anything on the Net. It gives a short mention on the link below, if you scroll down to Economics In The Empire. I will check some more later to see if I can find other sites.

http://www.britishempire.co.uk/maproom/13colonies.htm

I think FDR was good, but not great. I think his foreign policy was ok, but he misread Stalin badly and appeased the Soviet leader way too much, but his overall handling of the war was good. Domestically he did a pretty good job in a bad time, but I don't think the New Deal was any great success.

People tend to forget that Washington chaired the Convention that replaced the Articles of Confederation with the Constitution as well as being the first president under the Constitution. He had some understanding of protecting the rights of the individual from mob rule while maintaining a strong central government. Hence his command of the troops during the Whiskey Rebellion.

The thirteen colonies in the Eighteenth century were probably the places with the highest standard of living in the world.

Correct? Well it does sound impressive, nor do I deny that it is possible. The facts that I hold say that the 13 colonies were close to British standards, they did not exceede them:

In 1700 the population of the US was 1 million, in the UK it was close to 9 million.
In 1700 GDP per capita was $527 in the US, and $1,250 in the UK (1990 International Geary-Khamis dollars)
In 1700 GDP was $527 million in the US, and $10 billion in the UK.

In 1820 the population of the US was 9.9 million in the UK it was 8.5 million
In 1820 the GDP per capita was $1,257 in the US, and $1,706 in the UK.
In 1820 the GDP was $12,5 billion in the US, and $36,2 billion in the UK.

It was in 1872 that the US GDP finally exceeded that of the UK:

USA: 106,360 million
UK: 105,795 million.

And in 1903 the GDP per capita was finally beat:

USA:4,551
UK:4,440

So the numbers bare a different story, but I could see why the US could have been "possibly" the best. That is excluding the extensive British empire if we were to include them.

Nice double standard here. Some of your polls need feedback, some don't, just depends on whether or not you constucted the poll in a decent manner, huh?

If you leave out an obvious choice, you get pissed.

FWIW, Coolidge rocked.

I liked Woodrow Wilson as well, although he was stubborn (worse then Bush even). I agreed with his internationalistic ethics, and his 14 points. Although they did play a major role in the means to the end (the actually treaty) they were always being contradicted by the Americans themselves (Wilson had to re-read the points to make sure he wasn't getting of tact). Wilson does have a bad reputation, but is it deserved? I think to a certain extent it is, he was the Bush of his time.

Eisenhower.

He understood enough about war to know that it was to be avoided at almost any cost. He made it possible to negotiate a truce in Korea, and managed to avoid war on a dozen occasions where his hawkish advisors wanted it.

He created the department of Health, Education and Welfare. He understood the need for strategic deterrence over raw military power and drew down the armed forces. He made some mistakes in his relations with Khrushchev, but managed to avoid armageddon at the height of the Cold War.

He overcame his generational racism to approve of the first federal desegragation policies.

He got Congress to pass the Federal Highway Act.

He was a centrist Republican that I, a socialist/green, might actually have voted for. He didn't need to strut around a carrier flight deck in a pathetic attempt to show leadership, and he knew deep down what it cost when he sent young men to their deaths on Omaha Beach.

In 1945 he said "Humility must always be the portion of any man who receives acclaim earned in the blood of his followers and the sacrifices of his friends." I wish our leaders felt the same way.

Dwight D. Eisenhower

Bringing to the Presidency his prestige as commanding general of the victorious forces in Europe during World War II, Dwight D. Eisenhower obtained a truce in Korea and worked incessantly during his two terms to ease the tensions of the Cold War. He pursued the moderate policies of "Modern Republicanism," pointing out as he left office, "America is today the strongest, most influential, and most productive nation in the world."

Born in Texas in 1890, brought up in Abilene, Kansas, Eisenhower was the third of seven sons. He excelled in sports in high school, and received an appointment to West Point. Stationed in Texas as a second lieutenant, he met Mamie Geneva Doud, whom he married in 1916.

In his early Army career, he excelled in staff assignments, serving under Generals John J. Pershing, Douglas MacArthur, and Walter Krueger. After Pearl Harbor, General George C. Marshall called him to Washington for a war plans assignment. He commanded the Allied Forces landing in North Africa in November 1942; on D-Day, 1944, he was Supreme Commander of the troops invading France.

After the war, he became President of Columbia University, then took leave to assume supreme command over the new NATO forces being assembled in 1951. Republican emissaries to his headquarters near Paris persuaded him to run for President in 1952.

"I like Ike" was an irresistible slogan; Eisenhower won a sweeping victory.

Negotiating from military strength, he tried to reduce the strains of the Cold War. In 1953, the signing of a truce brought an armed peace along the border of South Korea. The death of Stalin the same year caused shifts in relations with Russia.

New Russian leaders consented to a peace treaty neutralizing Austria. Meanwhile, both Russia and the United States had developed hydrogen bombs. With the threat of such destructive force hanging over the world, Eisenhower, with the leaders of the British, French, and Russian governments, met at Geneva in July 1955.

The President proposed that the United States and Russia exchange blueprints of each other's military establishments and "provide within our countries facilities for aerial photography to the other country." The Russians greeted the proposal with silence, but were so cordial throughout the meetings that tensions relaxed.

Suddenly, in September 1955, Eisenhower suffered a heart attack in Denver, Colorado. After seven weeks he left the hospital, and in February 1956 doctors reported his recovery. In November he was elected for his second term.

In domestic policy the President pursued a middle course, continuing most of the New Deal and Fair Deal programs, emphasizing a balanced budget. As desegregation of schools began, he sent troops into Little Rock, Arkansas, to assure compliance with the orders of a Federal court; he also ordered the complete desegregation of the Armed Forces. "There must be no second class citizens in this country," he wrote.

Eisenhower concentrated on maintaining world peace. He watched with pleasure the development of his "atoms for peace" program--the loan of American uranium to "have not" nations for peaceful purposes.

Before he left office in January 1961, for his farm in Gettysburg, he urged the necessity of maintaining an adequate military strength, but cautioned that vast, long-continued military expenditures could breed potential dangers to our way of life. He concluded with a prayer for peace "in the goodness of time." Both themes remained timely and urgent when he died, after a long illness, on March 28, 1969.

For more information about President Eisenhower, please visit
The Eisenhower Center
Dwight D. Eisenhower Library and Museum

U.S. Presidents: United in Service
Take a look at presidential biographies made by kids and videos about service from the President's Council on Service and Civic Participation.

Thirty-Fourth President
1953-1961

Born: October 14, 1890 in Denison, Texas

Died: March 28, 1969 in Washington D.C.

Married to Mamie Geneva Doud Eisenhower

George Washington and John F. Kennedy And Abe Lincoln

The thirteen colonies in the Eighteenth century were probably the places with the highest standard of living in the world.

Correct? Well it does sound impressive, nor do I deny that it is possible. The facts that I hold say that the 13 colonies were close to British standards, they did not exceede them:

Well, despite your doubts, which is admittedly understandable, Americans did have the highest living standards in the West, and as the article notes, there was really no reason to rebel at that time, although maybe they were looking to the future, since they realized the great potential of the continent.

The Americans of 1776 had the highest standard of living and the lowest taxes in the Western World. Farmers, lawyers, business man, and plantation owners would make an equivalent of $500,000 a year. Other people such as merchants had a very high standard of living as well. The British wanted their fair share of the lucrative cash flow in order to offset the costs of providing security and government to the Americans.
http://www.kusd.edu/schools/lance/platinum/banaszynski/revolution/loyalists_links_2003/an_oath_of_loyalty.html

You have to remember that the British were reeling after the Seven Year's War, which had almost emptied the treasury paying for it, while the American colonists had continued business as usual. It was the British merchant class, which had taken a real hit, that had pressured Parliament to tax the colonists, the equivalent taxes that British citizens were already paying. Americans really had it good in 1776.

Anyway, this has become a threadjack, and it wasn't intended. To get back on track, Woodrow Wilson is over-rated IMO. A racist progressive, he emptied the federal government of blacks after positions had been opened to them under T. Roosevelt and Taft. He fought against women's suffrage for almost his entire two terms, only giving in finally under enormous public pressure, including his own two daughters, and because he didn't want to deal with it anymore with Versailles occupying his time. He screwed Pancho Villa, turning a one-time ally into an enemy for life, and he sent the Marines into Latin American countries over 20 different times. He wrongly assumed that the rest of the Entente leaders shared his world vision, and his stubbornness, and feud with Henry Cabot Lodge led to his refusal to bend somewhat concerning Article X in the League of Nations charter, which was part of the Paris treaty, meaning that the Senate refused to ratify the treaty, and thus not join the L of N, which had been one of his main goals going to Paris.

Lincoln was the greatest president we've ever had. I believe, had he not been assassinated, we would be living in a profoundly different world today. The Civil Rights movement would have happened seventy years ahead of schedule. He suspended Habeas Corpus to protect the White House, and also instituted the draft (after the Confederacy) toward the end of the Civil War.

Wilson was a dick. He instituted the draft as well, but for a worthless cause--World War 1. Can you imagine being sent off to Europe to fight during that period against your will? The Western Front was a horrific place. I don't know how people did it.

One of the guys who had been a hostage in Iran during that whole deal came to our school to talk a few years ago. And I quote--"Carter did the work but Reagan took the credit." It is a bit strange, how they were released the day Reagan was inaugurated. Reagan also funded a band of thugs called the Contras, against Congress' will. The fucker should have been impeached for that one, he's responsible for thousands of murders in Central America.

I don't know enough about Clinton, actually. I heard someone say that he was the best republican president we ever had. Washington was Hamilton's pawn. Hamilton was the guy who really turned America into what it is today--a ruthless corporation. Jefferson was a total cocksucker--he saw Native Americans and Blacks as inferiors, and wanted to "civilize" them by forcing christianity upon them. I believe that several civilizing schools were constructed during his tenure, but they only pumped out a few hundred kids so we decided to screw it and keep murdering the Native Americans. I don't think any president's during the antebellum era can be voted best president because they were all advocates of slavery, something seen as immoral now and even back then by many, many people (even if they didn't think blacks were equal, they were still against slavery for various other reasons, the south gaining political power, the slaves stealing white jobs, that sort of thing).

I watched a show on the Kennedy's yesterday. I think Bobby Kennedy would have made a pretty cool president if his dad hadn't angered Cthulhu. That's where the curse comes from, after all.

"Washington was Hamilton's pawn" LOL
GW was nobody's pawn. He saw the Articles of Confederation as inept and chaired the convention that replaced them with the Constitution and a balanced federalist government.
Jefferson was more of a Univeralist who did his own translation of the Bible.

Washington was Hamilton's pawn.

Washington was definitely not Hamilton's pawn and there is nothing to suggest as much. He may have agreed with Hamilton on certain issues, such as the national bank, but it was only after asking both Hamilton and Jefferson to submit their arguments in the form of letters, and Hamilton presenting the better argument. If Washington seemed to favor Hamilton's ideas, it was because they agreed with his own ideas, not because he was Hamilton's pawn.

Hamilton was the guy who really turned America into what it is today--a ruthless corporation.

Disagree again. Hamilton was a realist. Jefferson was an idealist. Hamilton looked at the British model and realized that if the US was to be completely independent of Europe economically, it would have to be more than a nation of farmers, as Jefferson wanted. And Hamilton believed that the wealthy elite needed to control the national banking system. Who better? But as they built the national economy up they would improve the standard of living for all. It wasn't Hamilton who ultimately abused the system.

Jefferson was a total cocksucker--he saw Native Americans and Blacks as inferiors, and wanted to "civilize" them by forcing christianity upon them.

That's a bit strong, since it is doubtful Jefferson was even a Christian. It is more likely he was either Deist or Unitarian. And while it's true he never freed his own slaves, Jefferson only said outright that he thought blacks were 'probably' inferior. He always qualified his thoughts, basing his observations of blacks on his own estate, and noting that with several generations of mingling, with proper education, he might have a different opinion. And he later said, after reading a copy of Benjamin Banneker's almanac, that it seemed if blacks had talents equal to others. And he never insisted that Native Americans adopt Christianity, just that they adopt the customs of white civilization, particularly becoming farmers and give up the nomadic culture.

Jefferson had intended to emulate Washinton by freeing his slaves on his death but by the time he died Virginia law prohibited the freeing of slaves. Jefferson did send some of his slaves to Ohio so he could give them their freedom there.

Americans will never be satisfied with leadership, because they are hoping for a Messiah to do the driving and thinking for them. Just keep lettin the good times roll, and kill anybody who tries to stop us, or who even makes us nervous. Tell us God wants it, and we'll re-elect at least for a second, and likely as many terms as necessary until the Mausoleum in the Mall. By then, Manifest Destiny will be back, and yea, nuetrons shall lighten our path, and following forty days and forty nights behind Ezekiel's wheels, the Promised Lands will unfold before us for the taking, and flowing with milk and hiney. Verlily, verily, I say unto you: God blesses Us who blast Them and Blast First, for if thou dost blast last, thou hath nought but past. Or in modern parlance, IFF is for the squeemish, and c'mon lady?! We';re tryin to fight some Terror, over here! Gimme a fuckin break, aright? Look, we fry-em, and He sorts em out. Tommorrow, we wake up, and those poor sunsabitches don't. That's how it is.

Washington was definitely not Hamilton's pawn and there is nothing to suggest as much

I have to get back to you on this. I don't recall the exact particulars, but I believe the textbook to my AP U.S History class states somewhere that Washington's goodbye speech was essentially written by Hamilton.

Hamilton was a realist. Jefferson was an idealist.

Yes, Jefferson was kind of a hippy. Not a very nice one, though. I don't think Hamilton was a realist. He's always seemed very vicious to me. I wish I had my textbook...it's all there. I'll have it on tuesday, it's back in my locker. I'm very sorry for my lack of evidence here, I always call other people out on it, I'm playing the part of the hypocrit. You may wind up being right, I just have to double check.

Okay, if you like Washington so much, just remember: even though relations were strained, he ineptly started the Seven Years War by attacking a French fort that I believe would later become Detroit. Again, I don't remember the particulars, but even if a war was inevitable, he was still the one who started it. The Seven Years War also precipitated, in many ways, the American Revolution, by forcing Britain to tax America to pay off its debt, among other factors. Perhaps, had Washington been busy cutting down Cherry Trees this whole thing may never have happened and we'd be just like Canada.

It wasn't Hamilton who ultimately abused the system.

No, Aaron Burr took care of him before he could reap the fruits of the harvest, before trying to get the Northeast to secede from the Union. Burr was one wierd guy. Hamilton did put the men into power who would, in the future, abuse the system. Based on the information you've presented, I would disagree with Hamilton, and not leave the nation's fiscal matters up to the elite, because regardless of how much they build the country up they'll still steal as much of it for themselves as they can.

That's a bit strong, since it is doubtful Jefferson was even a Christian.

Heh...forgot about that one...

And he never insisted that Native Americans adopt Christianity, just that they adopt the customs of white civilization, particularly becoming farmers and give up the nomadic culture.

Regardless, it still seems like a draconian idea to me.

Pollux,
You need a better textbook.
The fort the French built was at the site of present day Pittsburgh.

I just got it mixed up. Like I said, I don't have the book with me, I'm going on something I learned four months ago.

edit:

if you'd care to recall my exact words--

he ineptly started the Seven Years War by attacking a French fort that I believe would later become Detroit.

Expressed there is my uncertainty at being correct. In spite of my mixing up the names, he still attacked the fort (unprovoked?).

Pollux V. It sounds like you might need to log off the computer and hit the books if you want to actually get the AP credit.


Yes, Jefferson was kind of a hippy. Not a very nice one, though

Did you know Thomas Jefferson actually invented the concept of Tye-Dye and grew patchouli on the farms at Monticello. He is also given credit for insisting that the musicians he hired to entertain his guests at parties play long into the night, resulting in the first known "jam band".

He was also known to totally bogart the conversation at times. :cool:

And occasionally boff a slave girl.

I have to get back to you on this. I don't recall the exact particulars, but I believe the textbook to my AP U.S History class states somewhere that Washington's goodbye speech was essentially written by Hamilton.

If your text actually taught you that Washington was Hamilton's pawn, you need to complain to your professor, or teacher, depending on what level you are, about your textbook. I've certainly seen plenty of inaccuracies in them.

Washington's Farewell Address was not a speech, it was a letter published in a Boston newspaper. He never delievered it as an oral address. He originally asked Madison to write notes for a farewell speech, then he tinkered with the notes, then gave them to Hamilton to revise it into a letter. Hamilton showed it to John Jay, who gave his input, it was given back to Washington, who made the final revisions before submitting it.

Yes, Jefferson was kind of a hippy. Not a very nice one, though.

:bugeye: Being a revolutionary and building a country doesn't leave you much time to be nice.

I don't think Hamilton was a realist. He's always seemed very vicious to me

Hamilton was a bastard, born in the West Indies, moved to New York and married a wealthy lady, and was determined to have a place in the new order. He proved himself both loyal and capable under Washington in the war. He was an economic genious and realized the economic potential of the nation better than Jefferson. I don't know that he was vicious, but he was certainly ready to do what he believed necessary for the nation, which often times offended other people.

You may wind up being right, I just have to double check

Oh, I'm right. :cool:

Okay, if you like Washington so much, just remember: even though relations were strained, he ineptly started the Seven Years War by attacking a French fort that I believe would later become Detroit.

It was Ft. Duquense, and as candy said, was located at present day Pittsburgh, and Washington neither 'ineptly' started the Seven Years War, nor was he commander of the force that attacked Ft. Duquense. That was the British commander, Gen. Edward Braddock. Washington's Virginia militia had been ordered to advance and block French activities in the area. After attacking and defeating a small force nearby, Washington's men built Ft. Necesssity, which the French would then attack with a larger force, forcing Washington to accept surrender terms. He would later offer his services to Braddock, who was then badly defeated by the French at Ft. Duquense, but by all accounts it was Washington who kept it from being a complete disaster.

No, Aaron Burr took care of him before he could reap the fruits of the harvest, before trying to get the Northeast to secede from the Union.

Who are you saying tried to get the Northeast to secede from the Union? Hamilton or Burr? And I'm not sure what you mean by reaping the fruits of the harvest. Are you suggesting Hamilton was creating some intricate financial scheme for his own profit?

Based on the information you've presented, I would disagree with Hamilton, and not leave the nation's fiscal matters up to the elite, because regardless of how much they build the country up they'll still steal as much of it for themselves as they can.

And you don't think the poor would have stolen as much as they could for themselves? But who should Hamilton have turned the fiscal matters of the nation over to if not those who knew how to handle those kind of numbers? I'm not trying to be smart, I'm just asking.

Regardless, it still seems like a draconian idea to me.

I'm sure Native Americans would agree with you.

The best president ever was FDR, on both foreign and domestic affairs he is the benchmark.

Fuhrer Roosevelt may have set the benchmark for an oppressive welfare state, and I am not exactly happy about him aligning America with Stalin; the second worst dictator who ever lived.

Fuhrer Roosevelt may have set the benchmark for an oppressive welfare state, and I am not exactly happy about him aligning America with Stalin; the second worst dictator who ever lived.

it seems though that most people underestimated stalins capability though

it seems though that most people underestimated stalins capability though

Churchill didn't underestimate him. But then, Churchill and Stalin were both seasoned statesmen; FDR wasn't.

It sounds like you might need to log off the computer and hit the books if you want to actually get the AP credit.

For your information, sonny boy, the first semester of my school ended on friday, which means that I have nothing to do for this three day weekend, including lugging a ten pound textbook around with me. That's why I don't have the book with me.

Did you know Thomas Jefferson actually invented the concept of Tye-Dye and grew patchouli on the farms at Monticello. He is also given credit for insisting that the musicians he hired to entertain his guests at parties play long into the night, resulting in the first known "jam band".

He was a wierdo. He counted and catalogued everything. He did things that we use computers for now, not because they're especially complex, but only because they're essentially boring and repetetive tasks that most people would rather not do.

Spyke,

I'm getting ready to concede defeat in this debate--be aware of that. You're quite knowledgeable on this subject matter, and for that, I commend you! But I will not do so until I've double checked the text, until I've quoted it verbatim for your examination.

Being a revolutionary and building a country doesn't leave you much time to be nice.

Oh no, of course not :rolleyes:

I don't know that he was vicious, but he was certainly ready to do what he believed necessary for the nation, which often times offended other people.

So you're basically saying he's vicious. Good enough for me.

Who are you saying tried to get the Northeast to secede from the Union? Hamilton or Burr?

Burr.

Are you suggesting Hamilton was creating some intricate financial scheme for his own profit?

There's always something under the surface. When have politicians ever worked only for the people they're supposed to represent without taking something a little something for themselves?

And you don't think the poor would have stolen as much as they could for themselves?

I wouldn't put the poor in charge, because, like the rich, they don't accurately represent the nation as a whole. I would rather middle class persons without a great deal of money to their name take control, or at least, I'd rather give them a chance.

But who should Hamilton have turned the fiscal matters of the nation over to if not those who knew how to handle those kind of numbers?

If there's one thing I've learned, history is full of idiots. People just get dumber the farther back you go. America was no exception, neither were the people running its banks. It seems to be like the country was just brimming with stupidity. Up until after the Civil War, we didn't even have a national currency. Several Panics and Boom and Bust cycles throughout the 19th century left droves of people homeless and propertyless--the nation rapidly went back and forth between profit and poverty. Wage earners were often compared to slaves (in spite of the differences), because they worked for next to nothing in horrific conditions with no benefits while their superiors gained immense fortunes from their labor. Does this sound like those who "knew how to handle numbers" were doing a good job with running the nation's fiscal matters?

I'm sure Native Americans would agree with you.

Jolly good.

Fuhrer Roosevelt may have set the benchmark for an oppressive welfare state, and I am not exactly happy about him aligning America with Stalin; the second worst dictator who ever lived.

I agree, it's not something that can be justified. Allying with evils to defeat greater evils is wrong, and everyone does it all the time. But should we have fought and liberated the Soviet Union? Do you think we could have really taken them on? I read a figure, from A People's History of the United States, that said, if memory serves, the Russians did something like 3/4 of the allied fighting in World War 2.

Although, now that I think about it, we did have a monopoly on the atomic bomb. It does open up a wealth of possibilities.

edit: you forgot in your poll that Bush is not our elected president. Just thought I'd mention that...

As I recall it was Burr that was tried for treason.
Washington strove to be a stoic which would probably make him unelectable today.

I read a figure, from A People's History of the United States, that said, if memory serves, the Russians did something like 3/4 of the allied fighting in World War 2.

What does that mean? Sounds like manipulating statistics to make a stupid argument. Last time I checked the Russians didn't enter the war until Hitler launched Barbarossa in the summer of '41, they didn't fight in Italy, North Africa, the Phillipines, Guadalcanal, Midway, Iwo Jima, and they damn sure didn't liberate France. Don't believe everything you read.

I'm sure Spyke is relieved you are conceding the argument. :)

The Soviets precipated WWII by reaching an agreement with Hitler over the partion of Poland. They took advantage of the was between Hilter, France, and England to invade Finland.

I'm getting ready to concede defeat in this debate--be aware of that. You're quite knowledgeable on this subject matter, and for that, I commend you! But I will not do so until I've double checked the text, until I've quoted it verbatim for your examination.
Otay ;) I should know more than you, but I commend you for taking an interest in history at all. Most people have no interest in their history.

Being a revolutionary and building a country doesn't leave you much time to be nice.

Oh no, of course not :rolleyes:
You're the one that brought it up that you didn't think Jefferson was a nice person, which seemed to indicate you thought it was somehow relevant to the argument.

I don't know that he was vicious, but he was certainly ready to do what he believed necessary for the nation, which often times offended other people.

So you're basically saying he's vicious. Good enough for me.
No, what I basically said was what I said about Jefferson. These men had just fought a revolution, and were now trying to create a nation in a way they thought best, and which often times their ideas were completely at odds with the other men who they had fought alongside in same revolution. These men were neither 'vicious', nor were they 'not very nice'. They were merely men who had placed theselves at a defining point in American history who were determined to build something grand and each thought their idea was best. One believed in the idea of a strong government while the next believed in a near anarchical society.

Are you suggesting Hamilton was creating some intricate financial scheme for his own profit?

There's always something under the surface. When have politicians ever worked only for the people they're supposed to represent without taking something a little something for themselves

I would suggest you study the characters of these men a good deal more. These men, including Hamilton, were not career politicians. These men were lawyers, economists, planters, and soldiers. They didn't get into politics for personal gain. These were the leading figures of the revolution, and it was quite natural that it was also them that took a leading hand it creating a government. They were in the process of a republican experiment, they weren't looking for monetary gain. Most of these guys had money already.

I wouldn't put the poor in charge, because, like the rich, they don't accurately represent the nation as a whole. I would rather middle class persons without a great deal of money to their name take control, or at least, I'd rather give them a chance.
There wasn't much of a middle class in those days. Some lawyers, small merchants, some yeoman farmers, and artisans. Hamilton, rightly or wrongly, believed the wealthy knew how to make money and therefore were suited to run the national bank. He wanted to tie them to the new government because they would more likely work to insure its success since it would effect their personal money. If they were successful, it would trickle down through the economy and everyone would benefit. Actually, his idea was sound.

But who should Hamilton have turned the fiscal matters of the nation over to if not those who knew how to handle those kind of numbers?

If there's one thing I've learned, history is full of idiots. People just get dumber the farther back you go. America was no exception, neither were the people running its banks. It seems to be like the country was just brimming with stupidity. Up until after the Civil War, we didn't even have a national currency. Several Panics and Boom and Bust cycles throughout the 19th century left droves of people homeless and propertyless--the nation rapidly went back and forth between profit and poverty. Wage earners were often compared to slaves (in spite of the differences), because they worked for next to nothing in horrific conditions with no benefits while their superiors gained immense fortunes from their labor. Does this sound like those who "knew how to handle numbers" were doing a good job with running the nation's fiscal matters?
That's what we call a 'BS' answer to an essay question. You talked on and on, but you never came close to addressing the question, "to whom would you have given the responsibility of handling the nation's fiscal matters?". But you sound like your blaming the 'boom and bust' cycles completely on those who ran the national bank. The colonies experienced 'boom and bust' while still a part of the empire, long before a national bank, and the country experienced 'boom and bust' long after the national bank in 1836 went the way of the dodo bird, up until the present, we just have mores safeguards in place today. Land speculation, speculation in the market, over-production leading to falling prices, etc., cause busts. Plenty of blame to go around with out laying it all on the bankers. And I don't know that people were 'dumber' the further back we go.

Allying with evils to defeat greater evils is wrong
Why?

But should we have fought and liberated the Soviet Union? Do you think we could have really taken them on?...
Although, now that I think about it, we did have a monopoly on the atomic bomb. It does open up a wealth of possibilities
Well, it's not like we had them rolling off an assembly line in the late 40s. And conquering to liberate another country is pointless if you have to nuke it in the process.

I agree, it's not something that can be justified. Allying with evils to defeat greater evils is wrong, and everyone does it all the time.

I know that people do it all the time, but I just don't understand how Stalin was determined to be less of a monster than Hitler.

But should we have fought and liberated the Soviet Union? Do you think we could have really taken them on?

"If Germany starts winning, then we'll help the Russians, and if Russia starts winning, then we'll have to help Germany. Let them wear each other out." - Harry Truman

I think Truman was on to something. It's that Missouri common sense. Truman seemed to have it. I have it. I bet wesmorris has it.

Once Western Europe had been secured, I think we should have played Germany against Russia, letting them fight until they are decimated, and then taken out the winner.

I read a figure, from A People's History of the United States, that said, if memory serves, the Russians did something like 3/4 of the allied fighting in World War 2.

I haven't read Zinn's book, but that figure seems suspect right off the bat. Is there more to the statistic, or was it worded differently?

As other SciForums members have pointed out, Russia was pretty much a no-show in the Pacific Theater (where the USA picked up most of the tab for fighting), and they also didn't fight in Italy, Northern Africa, Western Europe (Normandy, France, Battle for Britain, etc.).

maybe that stat refers to battlefield casualties? im not sure if that stat accurately reflects that, but it would seem like a reasonable assumption. i am currently the book right now, although i havent made it that far yet. it is a pretty interesting read. i would recommend it to anyone.

As for my answer to the poll...

I'll have to vote "Other", since for most of time I have followed politics (early 1990s until now), Charlton Heston was my president.

But if I am forced to pick an actual US president, I'd have to say Calvin Coolidge (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/jonahgoldberg/printjg20010822.shtml). We need more presidents who believe the job of the federal government is to mind its own business.

I know that people do it all the time, but I just don't understand how Stalin was determined to be less of a monster than Hitler.

I don't think we really knew the depth of Stalin's cruelty until after his death, but we sided with him because it was Hitler who broke the non-aggression pact. If it had been the other way around, who knows how it would have affected relationships? Maybe we would have been able to let them beat on each other for awhile. Maybe we wouldn't have ended up in Europe at all since in that scenario Hitler wouldn't have declared war on the US following Pearl Harbor. If the Soviets had defeated Germany they might have been able to take all of Europe.

I suspect that the way Zinn got the highest numbers for the Soviets was by including civilian casualties. Stalin's progroms had left the general population unable to survive the German invasion and the harsh winters. A lot of the people died of starvation.

Finally, another Coolidge fan. Less is more.

Now that classes have changed I am in possession of three textbooks, each of about the same hefty amount. I'll have the U.S History one here tomorrow.

But I can get to the other reply, and let you all know that I have neither forgotten this threat nor entirely forfeited my argument.

I know that people do it all the time, but I just don't understand how Stalin was determined to be less of a monster than Hitler.

Hitler did declare war on us, I believe, after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. I'm not sure if this was before or after he invaded Russia.

Supposedly, and, ironically, Hitler was the only man that Stalin really trusted. Why, is completely beyond me, I think the two men hardly knew each other. Did they even meet, face-to-face? Had Hitler maintained some measure of sanity, and not decided to invade Russia, we could all be living in a very, very different world today. I believe the figure I mentioned, 3/4 of the fighting done by Russia (which, pegasus, if you'd be so kind to double check...I've read the book but I borrowed it, and thus, returned it as well) was the fighting against Nazi Germany.

Once Western Europe had been secured, I think we should have played Germany against Russia, letting them fight until they are decimated, and then taken out the winner.

The trouble there was that there was nothing left of Germany to fight with. What the allies didn't destroy Hitler did, on purpose, to keep the allies from taking advantage of the German industrial machine too soon. Remember, up until the end of World War 2 Germany had been a significant European power for as long as it had really existed.

And while Russia suffered unthinkable casualties, they could have handled more. The war turned Russia around, into the only power on Earth that could contend with the United States.

Russia was pretty much a no-show in the Pacific Theater

They were ready to help us out with the unnecessary invasion of Japan, they had a bone to pick with the Japanese since the Japanese had kicked their asses a few decades earlier in a naval war whose name I've forgotten...but then the Americans nuked Japan, some say, as a warning to Russia. "Look at we got, assholes. Now what are you gonna do?"

I think most of the Russian fighting was done in Russia. Hitler got about as far as Napoleon, a huge tract of land, from France to Moscow, but then, like Napoleon, his army was ultimately destroyed by the Russian winter.

Pollux,
The Soviets only declared war on Japan after we used the A-bomb because we had agreed to share technology only if they declared war on Japan. It was pocessing the bomb that made the Soviets a contender.

Hitler did declare war on us, I believe, after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. I'm not sure if this was before or after he invaded Russia.

Germany launched its invasion of the Soviet Union on 22 June, 1941. Hitler and Mussolini declared war on the US on 11 December,1941, 4 days after Pearl Harbor, fulfilling his guarantee to the Japanese, although not required by the Tripartite Pact, and in effect sealed his fate.

George Washington and Theodore Roosevelt are my favorites.

My favorite president was Reagan. For pretty much the entire decade of the 70's, my family was dirt poor. We practically lived on beans and tortillas, and if it wasn't for the dump, we probably wouldn't have had any furniture or major appliances. Our clothes came mostly from the Salvation Army. We only got new clothes at the start of the school year. We learned shoplifting at an early age because if you can't afford McDonald's, you sure as hell can't afford a bottle of Tylenol for Mom's migraines. Both of my parents worked, and my brothers each held part-time jobs. I started my part-time job at age 12. All 5 of us were working and we still couldn't make it. Apparently we made too much money to qualify for assistance, but not enough to live on. (The standards were really screwed, worse than they are now.) When Reagan got elected, we didn't pay much attention. Then something strange and wonderful happened somewhere and we started seeing more money. By 1985, we had gone from desperately trying to keep a 1953 Plymouth Rust-O-Rama from falling to pieces to seeing my brother buy the first new car ever in our family. (It was an '85 Ford Escort.) We had stopped wondering where our next meal was coming from (we had actually taken to stealing bits and pieces from picnics, etc.). I don't know how much Reagan had to do with it, but I will forever associate his presidency with the time we got the break we needed to get out of the Slums and into Suburbia. I don't care how it happened, I will always credit Reagan with putting the food on our table.

My favorite president was Reagan. For pretty much the entire decade of the 70's, my family was dirt poor. We practically lived on beans and tortillas, and if it wasn't for the dump, we probably wouldn't have had any furniture or major appliances. Our clothes came mostly from the Salvation Army. We only got new clothes at the start of the school year. We learned shoplifting at an early age because if you can't afford McDonald's, you sure as hell can't afford a bottle of Tylenol for Mom's migraines. Both of my parents worked, and my brothers each held part-time jobs. I started my part-time job at age 12. All 5 of us were working and we still couldn't make it. Apparently we made too much money to qualify for assistance, but not enough to live on. (The standards were really screwed, worse than they are now.) When Reagan got elected, we didn't pay much attention. Then something strange and wonderful happened somewhere and we started seeing more money. By 1985, we had gone from desperately trying to keep a 1953 Plymouth Rust-O-Rama from falling to pieces to seeing my brother buy the first new car ever in our family. (It was an '85 Ford Escort.) We had stopped wondering where our next meal was coming from (we had actually taken to stealing bits and pieces from picnics, etc.). I don't know how much Reagan had to do with it, but I will forever associate his presidency with the time we got the break we needed to get out of the Slums and into Suburbia. I don't care how it happened, I will always credit Reagan with putting the food on our table.

well everyone i knew or who related to during regans presidency seeemed to have lost their jobs. we lived off the government cheese and powder milk. that is what i associate reagan with. he sucked

I wonder what happened that was so different? Yeah, I know a lot of people lost their jobs. I saw one of my good friends go homeless (I didn't learn about her situation until after a year, then she and her mother went to Sacramento to live with friends). But I also saw a lot of my friends take advantage of new opportunities that opened up to them and they got out of the holes they had been plunged into. The money started coming in and they didn't waste their time with it. Reagan was the greatest.

'Carter is the most incompetant president in history of US.'

a) 'Incompetent.'

b) I beg to differ. Examine our current situation, you can't possibly think Carter is the worst. :bugeye:

Even Georgie isn't the worst. Anybody here remember the Teapot Dome scandal?

I have a presidential question, though, and I'm sure somebody here can answer it. Lincoln is the subject. We all know he freed the slaves (or however you want to phrase it), and like all little politically correct people we praise him for it. But can anybody tell me what else he did? All we got in school was "He freed the slaves and was president during the Civil War." Whoop-de-doo. Yeah, I know I could look it up, but sometimes I prefer the angles here on exoscience. They're more from the real world.

TR - the American lion!

Bush jr. is a loser........

I heard a rumor, not knowing if it is true. Something about George Washington being a King, and he turned it down?
Some clamored for him to become Emperor of America, but he turned it down, and later stepped down as President, setting the precedent for all elected officials: limited tenure.

To answer the thread question:
Thomas Jefferson or Theodore Roosevelt.

I'm for almost any of the first 7 presidents, the Alien and Sedition Acts notwithstanding, the reason being that these men generally were statesmen, not politicians.

We got really lucky having Washington as our first president under the constitution, but can you name the eleven Presidents of Congress that were before him? Washington's humble ego set the bar for everyone who followed. It was he who, when offered a big long, glorious title said " 'Mr. President' will do fine."

I noticed all presidents on the poll are American!

So I vote for Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands. Never started a war. Always gave me one day off every year. Never gave me trouble.

Is a queen a president? I'm sure she presides over stuff...

President, queen, pope...it's all the same.

Which of these presidents do you consider was the best for the US, and if you could which one would you wish would be become president again if those term limits were lifted? :confused:
I voted Reagan. He revived the economy after the disaster of the Carter presidency, rebuilt our military, and restored American confidence. Not to mention winning the cold war. Of the presidents specifically listed, he was certainly the best. And I didn't want to vote "other".

I really don't think Reagan was superior to Washington, though. Without him there would be no United States of America. He could have made himself king. His authority gave the constitutional convention legetimacy. He was truly the "essential man".

To think, I recall reading that some sniper during the revolutionary war had Washington in his sights, but decided not to shoot. There's a pivot point in world history if there ever was one.

I think the overall tactic during the Revolution was to send a wall of lead at the enemy and see who goes down. I had heard something about the enlisted man wasn't supposed to specifically target an officer, although if they got hit, they got hit. I'm sure not many guys paid attention to it. The bullet that was headed toward "Bloody Ban" Tarleton sure didn't care about class. Of course, it got his horse instead and triggered a series of tragic events that came to be known as the "Waxhaw Massacre", but that's between Ban and Buford.

It's possible that the sniper was out of range or that the winds, etc. weren't right. If I was a loyalist sniper and "arch-rebel Washington", as the Brits called him in a contemporary news story, came within range, that boy is going down!!!

FDR and Clinton.

FDR and Clinton.

QFT