PDA

View Full Version : Best and Worst Republican Presidents



CaughtintheMiddle1990
04-11-2010, 10:44 PM
My personal ranking:

From best to Worst

1) Eisenhower
2) Ford (not in terms of executive competence but in terms of his honesty and decency. He inherited the Presidency at it's nadir and did an admirable job of repairing it's image.
3) Nixon
4) Lincoln
5) Ronald Reagan
6) George H.W. Bush
7) George W. Bush
8) Teddy Roosevelt
9) Calvin Coolidge
10) Warren Harding
11) William H. Taft
12) William McKinley
13) Chest A. Arthur
14) Ulysses S. Grant
15) Rutherford Hayes
16) Benjamin Harrison
17) James Garfield

NJCardFan
04-11-2010, 10:49 PM
What's your rational? Garfield didn't even have a chance to lead having been shot after 4 months in office. So, listing him as worst is unfair. And you're reasoning of why you put ford #2 proves what kind of idiot you really are.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
04-11-2010, 11:00 PM
What's your rational? Garfield didn't even have a chance to lead having been shot after 4 months in office. So, listing him as worst is unfair. And you're reasoning of why you put ford #2 proves what kind of idiot you really are.

I put Garfield last because as you said he didn't have a chance to lead..No one knows what kind of President he could've been, so where should I put him? In the middle, above men who actually led for better or for worse?
And like I said, Ford was a horrible administrator but he inherited the Presidency at it's lowest point and actually managed to inspire some confidance in the nation or the Presidency after Watergate, Vietnam and all the chaos of the '60s. He put an end to a lot of the dirty things that were going on in the CIA and exposed a lot of stuff that few other presidents would've dared to, and he made one of the most controversial Presidential decisions in history for what he felt was (and I agree with him) the sake of the nation, and the health of a former President.

He may have been crappy as President, but then again he never really got to adopt a true "Ford" Presidency; He never really had his own domestic agenda, most of it was a watered down continuation of Nixon's and as for foreign policy his hands were tied by Congress with respect to Vietnam, though he did at least attempt to an even somwhat honorable end to the war by handling the Mayaguez incident well, as well as the noble Operation Babylift.

He also did some really admirable campaigning for women's rights while President, using the power and recognition he had as president to bring more exposure to the cause.

He's last truly decent man to sit in the office, in my opinion. Maybe not the best President, but a very honorable man, which is more than I can say for his direct successor (Carter). He had a role he never really wanted thrust on to his shoulders and did a good enough job. His main foibles were the economy and dealing witht the Watergate Baby Congress.

lacarnut
04-11-2010, 11:06 PM
Where is your list of best to worst Democratic Presidents. That would be interesting.

PoliCon
04-11-2010, 11:16 PM
Ronald Reagan
Calvin Coolidge
Eisenhower
Lincoln
Benjamin Harrison
James Garfield
Rutherford Hayes
George W. Bush
Chest A. Arthur
William H. Taft
William McKinley
Ulysses S. Grant
Ford
Nixon
George H.W. Bush
Warren Harding
Teddy Roosevelt

The middle of the list is subjective - but the top 2 and the bottom 1 should be the same for any conservative.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
04-11-2010, 11:20 PM
What's your rational? Garfield didn't even have a chance to lead having been shot after 4 months in office. So, listing him as worst is unfair. And you're reasoning of why you put ford #2 proves what kind of idiot you really are.


Where is your list of best to worst Democratic Presidents. That would be interesting.

1) Truman--Not a bad domestic policy, integrated the military which was a very dangerous political move, ende WWII in triumph and saved hundreds of thousands of American soldiers by dropping the bomb, which is probably the hardest moral decision any President has ever had to make, and never regretted it. He gets high marks for his handling of the USSR by not backing down to them and for his handling of the restructuring of postwar Europe. The last president to truly go no holds barred when fighting a war.
2) John F. Kennedy--Weak on Foreign Policy in many ways but had a pretty good record on domestic policy for his term of office--Approved what was the biggest tax cut in history until Reagan
3) Clinton
4) LBJ---High Marks for the Space Program, his environmental agenda, his promotion of the arts and higher educational establishments, the Civil Rights Act. I don't applaud his expansion of welfare and Vietnam, while it seemed to make sense from the view of the Domino theory, was a tragedy.
5) FDR---I think much of the New Deal was what was needed at the time and applaud the way he guided and reassured the nation through the Depression and the War. He also made a very tough and controversial decision---the internment of the Japanese, which I support.
6) Grover Cleveland
7) James Polk
8) Martin Van Buren
9) Franklin Pierce
10) Jimmy Carter
11) Andrew Jackson--Trail of Tears, etc
12) James Buchannan--Did very little to solve the crisis of the Civil War and instead largely left it in his succesor's lap
13) Woodrow Wilson. Horrible man all around, got us involved in a war we had no business being in, a horribly racist figure who set race relations back decades, just generally a stupid sonofabitch.

PoliCon
04-11-2010, 11:23 PM
13) Woodrow Wilson. Horrible man all around, got us involved in a war we had no business being in, a horribly racist figure who set race relations back decades, just generally a stupid sonofabitch.Interestingly enough the current president shares most of his views and policy preferences

Chuck58
04-11-2010, 11:28 PM
Interestingly enough the current president shares most of his views and policy preferences

Beat me to it. I was going to say, Wilson and obama are cut from the same cloth, or same ideology. Further, I also think obama is racist.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
04-11-2010, 11:29 PM
Interestingly enough the current president shares most of his views and policy preferences

How so?

I personally think he made one of the biggest blunders of the 20th century by involving us in WWI. We should've remained a neutral party. The passengers on the liners were warned weeks in advance that it was incredibly dangerous to be on such liners in those waters, yet they still went. It was a weak reason to go to war but he seized upon it because he was a war monger. He botched the ending negotiations of the war and many of his mistakes (and of course the mistakes of his other international contemporaries) laid the groundwork for World War II.

Again, also a very racist asshole.

Though, he can be credited for slowly starting the Cold War--He refused to recognize the newly formed USSR and even had our soldiers fight against the Soviets in the Russian Civil War.

fettpett
04-11-2010, 11:31 PM
Lincoln- saved the Union hard to argue with that

Coolidge
T. Roosevelt
Regan

Each of these Men lead the Country forward in significant times in American History, Coolidge set the tone for the roaring 20's, cut taxes and spending to the lowest levels ever.
Roosevelt set the tone for the American Century, Regan ushered in a new wave of Conservatism and helped push America past the USSR as the worlds lone superpower, also helped bring back Pride in America


Good/Decent
Eisenhower
McKinely
G HW Bush
G W Bush
Ben Harrison

Alright/Bad:

Grant
Arthur
Hayes
Taft
Harding
Nixon
Ford

Not in office Long enough
Garfield- 4 months in office and treated with horrendous medical care that was bad even for that time.

PoliCon
04-11-2010, 11:32 PM
How so?

I personally think he made one of the biggest blunders of the 20th century by involving us in WWI. We should've remained a neutral party. The passengers on the liners were warned weeks in advance that it was incredibly dangerous to be on such liners in those waters, yet they still went. It was a weak reason to go to war but he seized upon it because he was a war monger. He botched the ending negotiations of the war and many of his mistakes (and of course the mistakes of his other international contemporaries) laid the groundwork for World War II.

Again, also a very racist asshole.

Though, he can be credited for slowly starting the Cold War--He refused to recognize the newly formed USSR and even had our soldiers fight against the Soviets in the Russian Civil War.

Wilson was a strong proponent of Eugenics and government control of everyone's lives - for their own good of course.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
04-11-2010, 11:35 PM
Wilson was a strong proponent of Eugenics and government control of everyone's lives - for their own good of course.

You think Obama believes in Eugenics? If you're referring simply to Abortion than I could understand...
But eugenics as a whole was a very perverted and fucked up idea, and while many of Obama's policies may be out of whack, I don't think he supports eugenics or the extermination as in the undesirables or undesirable races. I mean they went so far as to want to sterilize prostitutes, black women, alcoholics, the mentally ill and others who were deemed 'undesirable.' American eugenics is a very dark blemish on our modern history.

fettpett
04-12-2010, 12:00 AM
How so?

I personally think he made one of the biggest blunders of the 20th century by involving us in WWI. We should've remained a neutral party. The passengers on the liners were warned weeks in advance that it was incredibly dangerous to be on such liners in those waters, yet they still went. It was a weak reason to go to war but he seized upon it because he was a war monger. He botched the ending negotiations of the war and many of his mistakes (and of course the mistakes of his other international contemporaries) laid the groundwork for World War II.

Again, also a very racist asshole.

Though, he can be credited for slowly starting the Cold War--He refused to recognize the newly formed USSR and even had our soldiers fight against the Soviets in the Russian Civil War.

I agree to a large extent, but there was more than just the Lusitania that led to us getting into WWI on the side of the Entente, in fact the Lusitania's sinking was just a catalyst for Wilson to push the Kaiser into receding unrestricted submarine warfare. It was largely our Connections to France that finally pushed us to back the Allies, as well as the German blunder in sending the Zimmermann Telegram, urging Mexico to declare War on the US. Many American's fought on both sides of the Conflict. Area's of Large German immigrants were very much against the entry into the War, particularly Wisconsin.
Also the Lafayette Escadrille was a good example of American Volunteers that fought for France during the War (I highly recommend "To the Last Man" by Jeff Shaara for a fictional account of the squadron, as well as all of his books)

Wilson's push to form the League of Nations lead to the Monstrosity that is the UN today. the Treaty of Versailles was a reprehensible thing that directly lead to the Second World War. Putting the blame of the entire War on Germany was idiotic, as well as putting $31.4 Billion in Reparations lead directly to the Great Depression as German was one of the Largest Economies in the World at the time, Second only to Britain, pretty much crippling the country.

M21
04-12-2010, 12:03 AM
Best = Dwight D. Eisenhower

Worst = Abraham Lincoln

fettpett
04-12-2010, 12:09 AM
Worst = Abraham Lincoln

um....Why?

M21
04-12-2010, 12:21 AM
um....Why?

He waged a war that cost the lives of 620,000 Americans. Including the murder of 50,000 innocent Southern civilians. He suspended the writ of habeas corpus without the consent of Congress (as required by the Constitution). He had duly elected State representatives illegally jailed without charges. He illegally imprisoned without warrant or trial some 13,000 Northern citizens who opposed his policies. He illegally shut down and confiscated the printing presses of dozens of newspapers that had spoken out against him.He re-instated and summarily promoted an Army officer who had been court martialed and cashiered by the US Army for war crimes. He illegally deported a member of Congress after said congressman criticized his unconstitutional behavior. He even had an arrest warrant issued for the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court because said justice refused to back his illegal actions. Chief Justice Roger B Taney ruled that Lincolns actions were illegal, criminal and unconstitutional. Lincoln locked up Maryland legislators to prevent them from voting to secede from the Union, that's kidnapping. He invaded the South without the consent of Congress as required by the Constitution, that's a war crime. He blockaded Southern ports without a declaration of war, as required by the Constitution, that's another war crime. He imprisoned without trial, hundreds of newspaper editors and owners and censored all newspaper and telegraph communication. He created three new states without the consent of the citizens of those states in order to artificially inflate the Republican Party’s electoral vote. He ordered Federal troops to interfere with Northern elections to assure his Party's victories. He confiscated private property, including firearms, in violation of the Second Amendment; and effectively gutted the Tenth and Ninth Amendments as well. He had his Generals attack US cities full of women and children and burn them to the ground.

Lincoln should have been shot for his actions.....and he was.

NJCardFan
04-12-2010, 01:32 AM
You think Obama believes in Eugenics? If you're referring simply to Abortion than I could understand...
But eugenics as a whole was a very perverted and fucked up idea, and while many of Obama's policies may be out of whack, I don't think he supports eugenics or the extermination as in the undesirables or undesirable races. I mean they went so far as to want to sterilize prostitutes, black women, alcoholics, the mentally ill and others who were deemed 'undesirable.' American eugenics is a very dark blemish on our modern history.
Obama's Science Czar: John Holdren (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Holdren)

Overpopulation was an early concern and interest. In a 1969 article, Holdren and co-author Paul R. Ehrlich argued that, "if the population control measures are not initiated immediately, and effectively, all the technology man can bring to bear will not fend off the misery to come."[19] In 1973 Holdren encouraged a decline in fertility to well below replacement in the United States, because "210 million now is too many and 280 million in 2040 is likely to be much too many."[20] In 1977, Paul R. Ehrlich, Anne H. Ehrlich, and Holdren co-authored the textbook Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment; they discussed the possible role of a wide variety of solutions to overpopulation, from voluntary family planning to enforced population controls, including forced sterilization for women after they gave birth to a designated number of children, and recommended "the use of milder methods of influencing family size preferences" such as access to birth control and abortion.
You don't appoint someone to such a high office without agreeing with what they believe in. I wonder what Holdren thinks now considering his estimate that we'd be at 280 million by 2040 considering we're at 300 million 30 years before his high water estimate. Also, I find it funny that you didn't include Obama in your list of Democrat presidents. The man has been in office for 15 months and has done enough to warrant a grade yet you conspicuously leave him off. Yet you include someone like Garfield who was in office a hot 4 months. Interesting.

Tecate
04-12-2010, 01:51 AM
Obama's Science Czar: John Holdren (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Holdren)

You don't appoint someone to such a high office without agreeing with what they believe in. I wonder what Holdren thinks now considering his estimate that we'd be at 280 million by 2040 considering we're at 300 million 30 years before his high water estimate. Also, I find it funny that you didn't include Obama in your list of Democrat presidents. The man has been in office for 15 months and has done enough to warrant a grade yet you conspicuously leave him off. Yet you include someone like Garfield who was in office a hot 4 months. Interesting.

http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i228/Loveways/ecoscience2.jpg

M21
04-12-2010, 02:08 AM
This discussion needs to stop right here before people start getting in trouble. this is the most irresponsible crap I have seen on this forum yet and i would suggest you start editing!Edit what?

CaughtintheMiddle1990
04-12-2010, 02:59 AM
I think saying any president, past or present, deserved or deserves to be shot is treasonous. Not treason, exactly, but in the same area. So I was wondering since he felt a former President deserved the sad fate he met, I was wondering if he felt our current president does too.

M21
04-12-2010, 04:02 AM
I think saying any president, past or present, deserved or deserves to be shot is treasonous. Not treason, exactly, but in the same area. So I was wondering since he felt a former President deserved the sad fate he met, I was wondering if he felt our current president does too.Abe has been dead for over 100 years. As President he was directly responsible for ordering the US Army to attack and kill 600,000 of us because they choose to leave the Union in peace. IMHO he should have been tried by the Supreme Court and punished as a war criminal. Only the winners decide what were war crimes. It cracks me up that the same folks who complain about the indoctrination of children in schools are unable to see except through their own bias and traditions.

How in the wide world of sports that equates to our current President I have no idea.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
04-12-2010, 04:14 AM
Abe has been dead for over 100 years. As President he was directly responsible for ordering the US Army to attack and kill 600,000 of us because they choose to leave the Union in peace. IMHO he should have been tried by the Supreme Court and punished as a war criminal. Only the winners decide what were war crimes. It cracks me up that the same folks who complain about the indoctrination of children in schools are unable to see except through their own bias and traditions.

How in the wide world of sports that equates to our current President I have no idea.

I was just curious. I've heard the same "Obama is a tyrant" rhetoric, which reminds me of the "Lincoln is/was a tyrant" (depending on when what I'm reading was written). Hell, "Wanted For Treason" posters of JFK circulated in Dallas days before he was killed. I just worry when rhetoric gets a bit too hate filled.

And had they not fired upon Fort Sumter, maybe the war could've been avoided. Lincoln had made it clear he had no desire to invade the south but would hold on to federal property with force and as the fort was populated with Union soldiers, it was under Union control and had been prior to Secession.

Sonnabend
04-12-2010, 05:06 AM
And had they not fired upon Fort Sumter, maybe the war could've been avoided. Lincoln had made it clear he had no desire to invade the south but would hold on to federal property with force and as the fort was populated with Union soldiers, it was under Union control and had been prior to Secession.

Um. No. By that time, war was a foregone conclusion. As soon as South Carolina seceded, followed by other states, war wasn't if, it was when.

you have some reading to do. (http://www.amazon.com/Civil-War-Narrative-Vol-Set/dp/0394749138)

Sonnabend
04-12-2010, 05:08 AM
Best: George W Bush

Worst: Barack HUSSEIN Obama.,

Constitutionally Speaking
04-12-2010, 05:26 AM
You think Obama believes in Eugenics? If you're referring simply to Abortion than I could understand...
But eugenics as a whole was a very perverted and fucked up idea, and while many of Obama's policies may be out of whack, I don't think he supports eugenics or the extermination as in the undesirables or undesirable races. I mean they went so far as to want to sterilize prostitutes, black women, alcoholics, the mentally ill and others who were deemed 'undesirable.' American eugenics is a very dark blemish on our modern history.


Planned parenthood was FOUNDED in order to further the eugenics cause.

PoliCon
04-12-2010, 08:15 AM
Best = Dwight D. Eisenhower

Worst = Abraham Lincoln

Roosevelt was worse the Lincoln.

noonwitch
04-12-2010, 09:11 AM
I'm from Grand Rapids, so of course Ford would top my list. He was just an all around decent man, and everybody in GR loved him.


Nixon will always go down in history with mixed reviews, but he was a brilliant man- if he only had kept his paranoia in check. He was smart enough to work with Kissenger to bring some good changes to our relations with the USSR and China.

FeebMaster
04-12-2010, 09:24 AM
Best: George W Bush

Worst: Barack HUSSEIN Obama.,

Obama went Republican?

Damn, you guys really will vote for anyone.

FeebMaster
04-12-2010, 09:25 AM
Roosevelt was worse the Lincoln.

Lincoln made men like Wilson and Roosevelt possible.

FlaGator
04-12-2010, 10:10 AM
Planned parenthood was FOUNDED in order to further the eugenics cause.

And right on cue, Planned Parenthood is in the new again for misinformation and encouraging abortions...

http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?t=27325

PoliCon
04-12-2010, 10:32 AM
Lincoln made men like Wilson and Roosevelt possible.

Perhaps - but Roosevelt make men like Wilson, Carter, Johnson, FDR, and Obama possible.

FlaGator
04-12-2010, 10:33 AM
Best Republican President: Regan
Worse Republican President: Ulysses S. Grant

djones520
04-12-2010, 10:36 AM
Perhaps - but Roosevelt make men like Wilson, Carter, Johnson, FDR, and Obama possible.

Ummm... are you talking about Teddy? Cause Wilson was dead before FDR became Pres.

FlaGator
04-12-2010, 10:37 AM
For those who are confused about who is and who isn't a republican (and judging by some of the responses there are a few of you) here is the approved list of possible answers.

http://www.republicanpresidents.net/

Rockntractor
04-12-2010, 10:43 AM
For those who are confused about who is and who isn't a republican (and judging by some of the responses there are a few of you) here is the approved list of possible answers.

http://www.republicanpresidents.net/

Well yeah but what were they really in their hearts?:confused::D

linda22003
04-12-2010, 11:33 AM
My personal ranking:

From best to Worst

1) Eisenhower
2) Ford (not in terms of executive competence but in terms of his honesty and decency. He inherited the Presidency at it's nadir and did an admirable job of repairing it's image.
3) Nixon
4) Lincoln
5) Ronald Reagan
6) George H.W. Bush
7) George W. Bush
8) Teddy Roosevelt
9) Calvin Coolidge
10) Warren Harding
11) William H. Taft
12) William McKinley
13) Chest A. Arthur
14) Ulysses S. Grant
15) Rutherford Hayes
16) Benjamin Harrison
17) James Garfield

"Chest" Arthur? He came right after "Legs" Garfield, didn't he?

linda22003
04-12-2010, 11:35 AM
Wilson was a strong proponent of Eugenics and government control of everyone's lives - for their own good of course.

If you want a first-rate eugenicist, you can't do better (or worse) than Teddy Roosevelt. And I like Teddy Roosevelt, but it has to be admitted.

linda22003
04-12-2010, 11:37 AM
Best Republican President: Regan
Worse Republican President: Ulysses S. Grant


You're the SECOND person who ranked "Regan" the best. WHEN was Donald Regan president? I thought he was just an advisor to President Reagan.

PoliCon
04-12-2010, 12:01 PM
Ummm... are you talking about Teddy? Cause Wilson was dead before FDR became Pres.

Well given that there was only republican roosevelt and that I listed FDR after wilson - I think it's clear that I mean teddy. :p

FlaGator
04-12-2010, 12:15 PM
You're the SECOND person who ranked "Regan" the best. WHEN was Donald Regan president? I thought he was just an advisor to President Reagan.

And by some strange quirk everyone but you knew who we were referring to. Isn't that interesting...

linda22003
04-12-2010, 12:17 PM
I just think it's interesting that people think so much of someone whose name they can't even spell.

FlaGator
04-12-2010, 12:21 PM
I just think it's interesting that people think so much of someone whose name they can't even spell.

Typos and misspellings are not the same thing. In my case it was a typo and when I scanned the page it looked right. In any case others understood and managed not to be rude in the process. Good manners is more important than good spelling sometimes.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
04-12-2010, 03:53 PM
Abe has been dead for over 100 years. As President he was directly responsible for ordering the US Army to attack and kill 600,000 of us because they choose to leave the Union in peace. IMHO he should have been tried by the Supreme Court and punished as a war criminal. Only the winners decide what were war crimes. It cracks me up that the same folks who complain about the indoctrination of children in schools are unable to see except through their own bias and traditions.

How in the wide world of sports that equates to our current President I have no idea.


I'm from Grand Rapids, so of course Ford would top my list. He was just an all around decent man, and everybody in GR loved him.


Nixon will always go down in history with mixed reviews, but he was a brilliant man- if he only had kept his paranoia in check. He was smart enough to work with Kissenger to bring some good changes to our relations with the USSR and China.

I've read Nixon was among one of the brightest men to hold office. Did he do a lot of fuzzy things because of his paranoid? Yeah. But he did a lot of good also at home and abroad..And people criticize him for not getting of 'Nam sooner but Vietnamization began not long after he became President. Had he literally withdrawn all of the troops on January 21st 1969, we would've looked weak and like we were really running. Unless you started using nukes I don't think by that point the war could've been won, and Nixon did try to win--that's what Laos and Cambodia were about.

fettpett
04-12-2010, 04:52 PM
I've read Nixon was among one of the brightest men to hold office. Did he do a lot of fuzzy things because of his paranoid? Yeah. But he did a lot of good also at home and abroad..And people criticize him for not getting of 'Nam sooner but Vietnamization began not long after he became President. Had he literally withdrawn all of the troops on January 21st 1969, we would've looked weak and like we were really running. Unless you started using nukes I don't think by that point the war could've been won, and Nixon did try to win--that's what Laos and Cambodia were about.

He did win, for all intense and purposes, it was the Democrat Congress that withdrew spending for the war. Even though it was 2 Democrat Presidents that got us as deeply involved as we were. JFK got the ball rolling and LBJ presided over much of the really unpopular stuff that went on over there. Johnson ran the war, Nixon fought to win the war.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
04-12-2010, 05:05 PM
He did win, for all intense and purposes, it was the Democrat Congress that withdrew spending for the war. Even though it was 2 Democrat Presidents that got us as deeply involved as we were. JFK got the ball rolling and LBJ presided over much of the really unpopular stuff that went on over there. Johnson ran the war, Nixon fought to win the war.

He did a very good job with what he was handed. I remember reading after NV broke their end of the Peace Accords, President Ford wanted to begin bombing again--which was our end of the deal--but Congress held his hands, and so over 2 million innocent South Vietnamese died in ''re-education'' camps. Their blood, in my mind is on the hands of every Congressman who voted against Ford and every Hippie who marched to bring us home. That's what would've happened if we ever showed an inch of weakness, and by not holding up our end of the agreement, we looked weak and like a country who wouldn't honor it's commitments.

NJCardFan
04-12-2010, 05:30 PM
I find it interesting that CITM makes a statement about Obama and eugenics then completely blows off my comment about Holdren as science czar. This much is clear, CITM is an Obamabot.


Abe has been dead for over 100 years. As President he was directly responsible for ordering the US Army to attack and kill 600,000 of us because they choose to leave the Union in peace. IMHO he should have been tried by the Supreme Court and punished as a war criminal. Only the winners decide what were war crimes. It cracks me up that the same folks who complain about the indoctrination of children in schools are unable to see except through their own bias and traditions.

How in the wide world of sports that equates to our current President I have no idea.

I'm not the brightest bulb on the tree but didn't the South fire the first shots?

M21
04-12-2010, 05:46 PM
I'm not the brightest bulb on the tree but didn't the South fire the first shots?

Yes...although it's not quite that simple. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Sumter

The guy legend says fired the first, and the last, shot of the civil war. http://www.old-picture.com/defining-moments/Edmund-Ruffin.htm

CaughtintheMiddle1990
04-12-2010, 06:31 PM
He did win, for all intense and purposes, it was the Democrat Congress that withdrew spending for the war. Even though it was 2 Democrat Presidents that got us as deeply involved as we were. JFK got the ball rolling and LBJ presided over much of the really unpopular stuff that went on over there. Johnson ran the war, Nixon fought to win the war.


I find it interesting that CITM makes a statement about Obama and eugenics then completely blows off my comment about Holdren as science czar. This much is clear, CITM is an Obamabot.



I'm not the brightest bulb on the tree but didn't the South fire the first shots?

I'll respond to you now about Holdren....That is disgusting and Holdren should not be in any position, even if it is an ''unofficial'' position. I do have to wonder if Obama agrees with him. Thank God though that he isn't in any cabinet position (though he probably would never have gotten appointed by Congress anyway). He sounds like a really nutcase. Some of Obama's other Czars are pretty nutty too--Van Jones (ex czar I know), Valerie Jarret, and that other guy--the one who admires the NAMBLA guy, I forget his name, he's disgusting too.

I have no problem with the idea of czars; Every President since FDR has had at least one, including Reagan, they usually are simply advisors or make the role of governing easier or help the President to better understand things he might not be the expert on (for example we can't usually expect the President tobe a science wiz)unlike Beck for example who seems to dislike the very concept, but it's who Obama has picked that I don't like.

Rockntractor
04-12-2010, 06:39 PM
Czars are not in the constitution , I don't care who has had them. They are a way to get around congress and put more power in the executive branch. We are marching ever closer to an all powerful president.

M21
04-12-2010, 06:46 PM
Czars are not in the constitution , I don't care who has had them. They are a way to get around congress and put more power in the executive branch. We are marching ever closer to an all powerful president.

Remember when a "Czar" was a bad thing?

fettpett
04-12-2010, 06:54 PM
I'll respond to you now about Holdren....That is disgusting and Holdren should not be in any position, even if it is an ''unofficial'' position. I do have to wonder if Obama agrees with him. Thank God though that he isn't in any cabinet position (though he probably would never have gotten appointed by Congress anyway). He sounds like a really nutcase. Some of Obama's other Czars are pretty nutty too--Van Jones (ex czar I know), Valerie Jarret, and that other guy--the one who admires the NAMBLA guy, I forget his name, he's disgusting too.

I have no problem with the idea of czars; Every President since FDR has had at least one, including Reagan, they usually are simply advisors or make the role of governing easier or help the President to better understand things he might not be the expert on (for example we can't usually expect the President tobe a science wiz)unlike Beck for example who seems to dislike the very concept, but it's who Obama has picked that I don't like.

dude, why do you keep quoting two people and only answering one? Czar's are more than just advisers, they answer to the President only and bypass the legislative branch, all Czars should be gotten rid of and the role banned by law

NJCardFan
04-12-2010, 10:45 PM
I'll respond to you now about Holdren....That is disgusting and Holdren should not be in any position, even if it is an ''unofficial'' position. I do have to wonder if Obama agrees with him. Thank God though that he isn't in any cabinet position (though he probably would never have gotten appointed by Congress anyway). He sounds like a really nutcase. Some of Obama's other Czars are pretty nutty too--Van Jones (ex czar I know), Valerie Jarret, and that other guy--the one who admires the NAMBLA guy, I forget his name, he's disgusting too.

I have no problem with the idea of czars; Every President since FDR has had at least one, including Reagan, they usually are simply advisors or make the role of governing easier or help the President to better understand things he might not be the expert on (for example we can't usually expect the President tobe a science wiz)unlike Beck for example who seems to dislike the very concept, but it's who Obama has picked that I don't like.

Who a person surrounds themselves with says a lot about that person. Obama's czars, as you stated, include a radical unapologetic Communist, a man who didn't see a problem with a high school student being in a relationship with a much older man, a man who is a proponent of eugenics, not to mention tax cheats and other shady characters in his cabinet or nominated to be in his cabinet. If Bush, or any Republican for that matter, had appointed or even suggested people of this questionable character the cries from the mountaintops would be deafening. But since it's Obama, who is a Democrat, it's all good.

linda22003
04-13-2010, 05:11 AM
The guy legend says fired the first, and the last, shot of the civil war. http://www.old-picture.com/defining-moments/Edmund-Ruffin.htm

And then, happily, saved a bullet for himself. :)

M21
04-13-2010, 11:59 AM
And then, happily, saved a bullet for himself. :)Absent from the body, present with the Lord. :)

jnkbortka
06-19-2011, 10:04 PM
Lincoln- saved the Union hard to argue with that

Coolidge
T. Roosevelt
Regan

Each of these Men lead the Country forward in significant times in American History, Coolidge set the tone for the roaring 20's, cut taxes and spending to the lowest levels ever.
Roosevelt set the tone for the American Century, Regan ushered in a new wave of Conservatism and helped push America past the USSR as the worlds lone superpower, also helped bring back Pride in America


Good/Decent
Eisenhower
McKinely
G HW Bush
G W Bush
Ben Harrison

Alright/Bad:

Grant
Arthur
Hayes
Taft
Harding
Nixon
Ford

Not in office Long enough
Garfield- 4 months in office and treated with horrendous medical care that was bad even for that time.

but wait, Lincon is supposed to be a democrat, he wasnt racist! :rolleyes:

fettpett
06-19-2011, 10:33 PM
but wait, Lincon is supposed to be a democrat, he wasnt racist! :rolleyes:

uhhh...what? if you mean he was more liberal than the Democrats then, yep he was

jnkbortka
06-20-2011, 03:56 PM
uhhh...what? if you mean he was more liberal than the Democrats then, yep he was

i'm saying, the dems always call us racist, but lincon was a republican and he freed the slaves

Rebel Yell
06-20-2011, 04:35 PM
i'm saying, the dems always call us racist, but lincon was a republican and he freed the slaves

Lincoln didn't free shit...... Must.......Resist......the.....bait.......

CueSi
06-20-2011, 04:37 PM
i'm saying, the dems always call us racist, but lincon was a republican and he freed the slaves

The Emancipation proclamation didn't free anyone, The . . .14(?)th amendment did.

~QC

jnkbortka
06-20-2011, 06:18 PM
The Emancipation proclamation didn't free anyone, The . . .14(?)th amendment did.

~QC

but he made a major step towards that

fettpett
06-20-2011, 09:48 PM
The Emancipation proclamation didn't free anyone, The . . .14(?)th amendment did.

~QC

yes, the 14th. Lincoln did what he needed to to save the Union, and said as much, but one of the primary goals of the GOP was getting rid of slavery, though on a more progressive, natural way. They didn't want war, the Dems in the south did.

Lincoln NEEDED a moral reason to continue the fight and keep France and England out of the war, Antietam gave him that, along with the Emancipation Proclamation.

Restoration would have gone much better if Lincoln had been in office instead of Johnson, he would have been able to reign in the Radical Republicans