Worst presidents of all time

At least Grind has access to the internet at the hospital. I'm glad there's something to do other than watch somebody visit him.
 
Yeah, long weekends tend to be like that. It's okay. I try to find ways to improve the site during these interludes.

Any ideas?
 
Watermark said:
Except Ford, who was mediocre, and Grant, who was awful.
Click to expand...

Don't sell Ford short. He served his country well during one of the most thankless Presidencies in our history. I wouldn't put him in the "Great" Presidents columns but he was a unifying factor after Nixon and he didn't ask for the job.

I mean what happened with Ford was amazing. One day he was a little known ranking minority congressman, then he was VP and shortly after that he was President. The hand picked successor of one of the most unpopular Presidents ever and the first one ever forced to resign in disgrace.

With all that going against him, how did he manage to govern? How did he put together an affective administration that could get anything done in those circumstances?

I think under the circumstances Ford did a comendable job and served his nation well.
 
Threedee said:
Benjamin. The other Harrison would be abbreviated as W. H., or W.

That's because he's an idiot.
Click to expand...

That's right. William Henry was Benjamin's grandfather. Alas, history was not kind to William Henry. A historically significant man who had the great misfortune to die 30 days after being elected President.
 
Mottleydude said:
That's right. William Henry was Benjamin's grandfather. Alas, history was not kind to William Henry. A historically significant man who had the great misfortune to die 30 days after being elected President.
Click to expand...

Had he lived longer, he may have introduced a school of thought concerning presidential cabinets that may have been followed by several of his successors. As it is, you can really see his philosophy in the 25th Amendment concerning presidential disability (WH Harrison believed that he and the cabinet should vote on all decisions before he would act - this made Tyler immediately unpopular with them when he took over). I agree about Ford btw.

a11n said:
well at least waterstone was trying.


come on lets give him hand clap
Click to expand...
You want to give Watermark the clap? :eek:
 
Threedee said:
Had he lived longer, he may have introduced a school of thought concerning presidential cabinets that may have been followed by several of his successors. As it is, you can really see his philosophy in the 25th Amendment concerning presidential disability (WH Harrison believed that he and the cabinet should vote on all decisions before he would act - this made Tyler immediately unpopular with them when he took over). I agree about Ford btw.

You want to give Watermark the clap? :eek:
Click to expand...

I don't think that policy would have lasted long before Harrison would have seen the errors of his ways.
 
Mottleydude said:
I don't think that policy would have lasted long before Harrison would have seen the errors of his ways.
Click to expand...

It would have worked reasonably well during the 19th C. except for the Lincoln years, because our presidents post-Jackson were fairly pious men who didn't need to make quick decisions. The coming of an egomaniac like TR in the turn-of-the-century would have seen its repudiation as ideologues such as himself and Wilson came into power, and in the postwar it would have been permanently put to rest as impractical. I'm sure a good 'ole Army boy like WH Harrison would have had no issues with his cabinet.
 
Threedee said:
It would have worked reasonably well during the 19th C. except for the Lincoln years, because our presidents post-Jackson were fairly pious men who didn't need to make quick decisions. The coming of an egomaniac like TR in the turn-of-the-century would have seen its repudiation as ideologues such as himself and Wilson came into power, and in the postwar it would have been permanently put to rest as impractical. I'm sure a good 'ole Army boy like WH Harrison would have had no issues with his cabinet.
Click to expand...

UnHuh. His administration would have been tied up in gridlock and he would have gotten precious little accomplished. No Harrison was a pretty bright guy and he was more than just a military man. He was an accomplished politician as well. The only way such a system would have worked is if he staffed it with yes men. Now that is something Harrison was very much capable of.
 
ib1yysguy said:
Nothing in there says they moved against their will (you claimed Lincoln had them shipped out). He favored giving them a safe refuge, which was stated in the link I gave. Nothing you have shown has backed up your claims that Lincoln was a racist who wanted to ship all blacks off the mainland against their will.

You are full of dog shit. Not even bullshit. That's too good for you.
Click to expand...

No, Ib1RacistPrick, Lincoln favored having them shipped out. I never stated he forced them to be, but he strongly encouraged they leave. Your initial statement leads one to believe, Lincoln did not favor this, but the history shows he did. You are wrong, I am right. Lincoln was as racist as anyone of modern times you can name. Much of this is due to the fact that most every white man in America was a racist in 1864. You can try to sugar coat this, you can claim that Lincoln wanted to "give them safe passage" but the point remains, Lincoln favored shipping them out of this country, as did most other white men who advocated for abolition at the time.

One of the biggest problems I have with punks like you, is this mindset that the South was responsible for the Civil War and it was fought over slavery. Lincoln himself blamed the war on the slaves! In his mind, it was THEIR fault this nation went to war, he blamed THE SLAVES! I don't blame the slaves, and I don't blame the South, I blame LINCOLN! He was the president, he was our leader, and HE should have found a way to avoid the most bloody conflict ever waged on our soil.
 
The Civil war was fought over the South's secession from the Union. That was Lincoln's legal argument for the conflict. Secession could be argued to this day but according to John C. Calhoun slavery was the best of all worlds. The argument becomes one of contract versus union consolidation. Lincoln did a profound thing in the sense in which he did not let the union divide. What would we have been had secession been allowed? Yugoslavia maybe? Would we be a world power even?

Bush junior is the worst pres in modern times, his failures maybe the worst of all time. But Reagan / Goldwater / conservative thinking, started the fantasy that left alone markets do good things. Bush just believed it.
 
midcan5 said:
The Civil war was fought over the South's secession from the Union. That was Lincoln's legal argument for the conflict. Secession could be argued to this day but according to John C. Calhoun slavery was the best of all worlds. The argument becomes one of contract versus union consolidation. Lincoln did a profound thing in the sense in which he did not let the union divide. What would we have been had secession been allowed? Yugoslavia maybe? Would we be a world power even?

Bush junior is the worst pres in modern times, his failures maybe the worst of all time. But Reagan / Goldwater / conservative thinking, started the fantasy that left alone markets do good things. Bush just believed it.
Click to expand...

Slavery was not the issue, regardless of what prejudiced minds may think. Slavery was a legal practice in America, upheld by Congress and the Supreme Court, it was not illegal or unethical to own slaves for the preceding century before the Civil War. Those who did own the abundance of slaves, were located in the South because agriculture was confined mainly to the South, not because people from the South had any different beliefs in the morality of human enslavement. The North benefited greatly from Southern agriculture, from the fruits of slave labor, and never once did they instigate a boycott or embargo on slave-produced goods from the South.

If the Federal government were to implement a ban on automobiles in California and New York, citing the massive amounts of pollution caused by all of the cars on the road, and advocated confiscation of citizens cars and trucks in those states, and those citizens revolted... would that be a 'war fought over pollution?' Of course not! Although, that may be the way ignorant people chose to see it after the fact, after the US won the conflict and successfully 'emancipated' their personal property. Ignorant people might say, well, those people in California and New York just wanted to keep polluting the atmosphere! That wouldn't be an accurate assessment of the facts. The fact remains, the Civil War issue of slavery, had to do with personal property rights of individual citizens, and the 'right' of a Federal government to seize said property without compensation. Southerners did not consider slaves personal property, the US Supreme Court ruled they were! This wasn't the fault of those who happened to own slaves, it was the fault of the US Government who had condoned slavery to begin with. If human enslavement had been the overriding issue, this could have been rectified years before the Civil War, like when the Founding Fathers penned the Constitution and Bill of Rights!

One fact that I continually point out to the ignorant, not one single Confederate soldier who fought in the Civil War, ever owned a slave.
 
Dixie said:
Slavery was not the issue, regardless of what prejudiced minds may think. Slavery was a legal practice in America, upheld by Congress and the Supreme Court, it was not illegal or unethical to own slaves for the preceding century before the Civil War. Those who did own the abundance of slaves, were located in the South because agriculture was confined mainly to the South, not because people from the South had any different beliefs in the morality of human enslavement. The North benefited greatly from Southern agriculture, from the fruits of slave labor, and never once did they instigate a boycott or embargo on slave-produced goods from the South.

If the Federal government were to implement a ban on automobiles in California and New York, citing the massive amounts of pollution caused by all of the cars on the road, and advocated confiscation of citizens cars and trucks in those states, and those citizens revolted... would that be a 'war fought over pollution?' Of course not! Although, that may be the way ignorant people chose to see it after the fact, after the US won the conflict and successfully 'emancipated' their personal property. Ignorant people might say, well, those people in California and New York just wanted to keep polluting the atmosphere! That wouldn't be an accurate assessment of the facts. The fact remains, the Civil War issue of slavery, had to do with personal property rights of individual citizens, and the 'right' of a Federal government to seize said property without compensation. Southerners did not consider slaves personal property, the US Supreme Court ruled they were! This wasn't the fault of those who happened to own slaves, it was the fault of the US Government who had condoned slavery to begin with. If human enslavement had been the overriding issue, this could have been rectified years before the Civil War, like when the Founding Fathers penned the Constitution and Bill of Rights!

One fact that I continually point out to the ignorant, not one single Confederate soldier who fought in the Civil War, ever owned a slave.
Click to expand...


Wow. You're a disgrace.
 
Dixie, you're a hoot. Whoever said you learned you "Sons of Confederacy" history lessons well nailed it. I've never heard such revisionist blathering...
 
worst Presidents of the past 100 years....

1) Nixon
2) Bush (W)
3) Hoover
4) Johnson
5) Carter
6) FDR

Best five

1) Ike
2) Reagan
3) T. Roosevelt
4) Clinton
5) JFK
 
Onceler said:
Dixie, you're a hoot. Whoever said you learned you "Sons of Confederacy" history lessons well nailed it. I've never heard such revisionist blathering...
Click to expand...

What is "revisionist" about it? What facts have I "revised" here? It seems to me, those of you who want to paint Lincoln as some African-American-loving civil rights leader, are the ones who are "revising" history, because that certainly wasn't the case. When I point out that Lincoln himself said the Emancipation Proclamation was a "military necessity", that is a fact, it's documented that Lincoln said this, I didn't make it up, and it's not something the "Sons of the Confederacy" concocted to make the war about something else. Again, I am not the one "revising" history, you are! Now perhaps you don't really see a problem with revising history in this case, your side won, and it's politically correct to assume the Civil War was fought over slavery, but that is not factually accurate and I have shown that to be the case. The only thing I have "revised" is your ignorance of historical facts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top