_Ray Posted February 14, 2009 Share Posted February 14, 2009 (edited) Who do you think was the best president ever? This does not include Obama, as he's only been in office for not even a month. Those who say Obama will be reported. This is not a poll, because there have been 43 Presidents, and only 20 choices are allowed per poll. If a mod would be kind enough to allow 43, it would be nice, although it probably won't happen. Edited February 15, 2009 by raybob95 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rappo Posted February 14, 2009 Share Posted February 14, 2009 It all went downhill after George Washington. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_Ray Posted February 15, 2009 Author Share Posted February 15, 2009 It all went downhill after George Washington. lol. I was thinking more along the lines of it went downhill after Adam and Eve. But that's just me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrLlamaLlama Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 #20 - James. A. Garfield. Known septalinguist (knew 7 languages), could write Latin with his right hand, English with his left, simultaneously. Seriously clever. Not even American, don't know his policies, don't care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Connor Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 I'll have to agree with Llama, that guy is epic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitsune Inferno Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 Andrew Jackson. Dude beat the shit out of a would-be-assassin with his cane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas. Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 (edited) Just to correct you, there have been 42 individuals who have been president, Grover Cleveland served two individual terms on the years 1885 to 1889 and 1893 to 1897. He's recorded as the 22nd and 24th president of the USA. Anyway, my favourite president seems to be Franklyn D Roosevelt. I think he handled WW2 pretty well and helped save our European asses from being captured by Nazis and Vice-Versa. The next choice would be Washington, he helped start up the country that would lead the world basically and brought some actual history to the country. Third, well simply it is Bush since he's the only president of America that I've seen spend his two terms of office. I recall the Kelly election of 2004 or 2005, I recall his speech after 9/11, everything. Even though he is hated, you guys did vote for him and all you could do is complain about him, that's what you guys are good at (as per American News, American TV, Walmart Clerks etc.). Edited February 15, 2009 by Thomas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrLlamaLlama Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 Read the subtitle of the topic before making facetious remarks, please. Andrew Jackson. Dude beat the shit out of a would-be-assassin with his cane. And lulz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hansui Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 i dunno much about American presidents, but i think Abraham Lincoln stand out of them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Husky Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 Usama Bin Laden's Brother, George Bush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott. Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 ^ Lolz At school, for my history GCSE course, we done an in-depth study of FDR, and I have to say, he was one remarkable dude! In my opinon, he was the best ever, no one will ever beat him. He managed to mastermind the revival of the USA after the depression (helped by WWII) by creating the lend lease act, which saw Britain purchasing weapons etc from the USA. He done amazingly well to survive polio and still become president, and at the time, people didn't even know he was disabled! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris82 Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 1. George Washington 2. Abraham Lincoln 3. Harry Truman 4. Ronald Reagan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Urbanoutlaw Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 (Rolls up newspaper, whacks Husky on the nose). Reagan. When he took office we really had a screwed economy, insane interest rates & inflation, one major car company just folded (AMC), another about to (Chrysler) & a drawn out hostage situation in Iran. His first order of business was to cut taxes, especially to the rich. People tend to forget that the "rich" also own businesses & when they make money they put it back into their businesses. This creates jobs & more people have money that they spend on things made by businesses. More people working = less people on state aid & more that can pay taxes, so EVERYONE has to pay less. Short version, economic boom we fondly remember as the '80s. While he was at it, he had faith in Chrysler & gave them a bailout in the form of a loan. That faith was well place & within a year Chrysler not only turned around, they paid back the loan & bought up AMC (how Chrysler acquired Jeep). The hostages were released within minutes of his inauguration out of fear that he would follow through on his promise of strong military action. While Iran avoided this action, Libya just never got a clue & kept openly supporting terrorist attacks. Early one morning they were visited by the US Air Force & suddenly lost interest in screwing w/ the Americans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rappo Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 In all seriousness though (this is the Serious Chat forum, right?) I can't name the best president. In my opinion they have all had their flaws - some more obvious than others. However I think the big flaw that is even apparent in some of "the best presidents" both Republicans and Democrats is militarism. Lincoln and FDR probably had the best reasons to go to war, but most were fairly unreasonable in that respect. Unfortunately that has just been the culture of the United States for the past 230+ years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Urbanoutlaw Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 You mean the "don't screw w/ us or we destroy you" part of the culture? Kind of obvious when you live in a world where there are some people bent on hating others. For example, the "so-called terrorists" (ref Helen Thomas, White House press core) taking "so called" box knives, hijacking "so called" airplanes full of "so called" people & flying them into the "so called" World Trade Center & Pentagon. Lincoln - American Civil War, started over the succession of southern states due to slavery being banned. Slavery = BAD. FDR - WWII. When Hitler was done w/ Europe, he had his sights on the US. Meanwhile the Japanese started taking Islands throughout the Pacific, again headed towards the US. Both were totally unprovoked & in the case of Japan, some of their warlords stated they attacked Pearl Harbor because they thought the US was weak & wouldn't fight. They cited Depression Era training films of US soldiers doing bayonet training w/ brooms & thought we couldn't defend ourselves. SURPRISE!!! We jab back & forth across the Atlantic, but do you really think Europeans wanted to have the Nazis running things? Wait a minute & let someone from the other side of the pond answer as to whether or not we should have gotten involved in WWII. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rappo Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 (edited) I don't know if you actually read my post, but I said Lincoln and FDR were more justified than others. As for the "so called" sarcastic crap, thanks I know. I also know that those things weren't without reason. I'm not saying I support what the terrorists did or whatever, but if you actually take a step back for a second and think about it, that was retaliation for decades of American intervention and oppression in the Middle East. I think George Bush made a good move by trying to get bin Laden, but he gave that up pretty quickly and subsequently duped America into a different, and costly, war. It's that sort of attitude that bothers me - using grief and patriotism for another agenda - and that's what we see too often in the US. Edited February 16, 2009 by rappo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Urbanoutlaw Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 Wait a minute & let someone from the other side of the pond answer as to whether or not we should have gotten involved in WWII. You apparently missed that line when you fired back. I really would like someone from Europe to weigh in on that. Yes, I read your post. The way you worded it implied you still thought they weren't right. "Lincoln and FDR probably had the best reasons to go to war, but most were fairly unreasonable in that respect." So you think the terrorists were justified & we should just let that go. Sorry our bad, it's okay. (yes, that was sarcasm.) What about Iran? The recently launched a telecommunications satellite into orbit & have been working on nuclear power. Maybe if we're nice enough to them they won't put the two together. George W. Bush: Will you be as critical of Obama when he makes unpopular decisions? Porkulus (the stimulus bill) is estimated to have a final cost of $1.3 TRILLION but we're supposed to just leave Iraq to their own devices because it cost a few billion. Yes, we took out their government, they were providing aid to terrorist organizations. We were defending ourselves as we have the right to. That also gives us the obligation to help the Iraqi people rebuild their country as a nation that can take care of themselves. Bush recognized that but somehow he's a bad guy. As for "giving up on Bin Laden", have you seen his day planner lately? MONDAY: Hide in hole. TUESDAY: Hide in hole. WEDNESDAY: Hide in hole, look at picture of daylight. THURSDAY: Hide in hole, hope to Allah today isn't day person providing hole decides I'm worth $10 million reward. See the pattern here? Bush gets points for that, Clinton knew who Bin Laden was after the first attack on the World Trade Center & did nothing about him. Epic fail for Clinton, I remember the news reports about Bin Laden & Al Quida (could not care less about exact spelling) being responsible after they tried to get the deposit back on the truck used in the bombing. Another Clinton fail was Somalia. That was one where we walked out & now it's an outlaw state & prate nest. George H. W. Bush (the first bush) never got credit for the aid he tried to give Somalia, the international poster child for world hunger. We sent food & medical supplies that were intercepted by by petty warlords. It finally got to the point that we had to send in the military just to get food to starving people. Still think US involvement is a bad thing? ON TOPIC RECAP: George H. W. Bush - +1 George W. Bush - +1 Bill Clinton - -2 If you really want to argue about whether the US has the right to defend ourselves, start your own topic on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rappo Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 (edited) I just said I think George Bush did something good by trying to go after bin Laden, and you say that I favor letting terrorists get away with what they did? Let alone what you're saying about bin Laden not mattering anymore. It's almost like you're reading what you want to see. Please expand your view of my posts before you reply to them like that. I do not appreciate you accusing me of such things. As for Iran launching a telecommunications sattelite into space - that's wonderful! Until it is confirmed that such scientific advancements are to be used for acts of terrorism, I don't have a problem with their society's evolution. That's the problem - advancements of the Middle East have always been held back by Western countries for fear of their potential uses, and their society has been held back for fear of nationalization of natural resources. Ahmadinejad has shown that he's not a complete monster the past couple weeks, and I hope that Obama follows through with his offer of discussions. It's the time to use different strategies than bomb the hell out of them. And that'll be all from me for this topic, since I don't want to steer it from what raybob wanted it to originally be (that happens a lot with his threads I noticed). I just wanted to get my view out there, and I thank you for expressing yours, Urbanoutlaw. I realize people differ, and that's why I'm not prepared to make sassy remarks about your opinions. Edited February 17, 2009 by rappo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaz The Great Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 I just want to say that while you two have gone off-topic, you have both posted decent-quality lengthy posts filled with your opinions and backed by what seems to be strong emotion. If the topic strays, I say no big deal, because you're having a good conversation and that's productive. Fuck strict guidelines about topics and how perfectly you have to stay on them. Other people can still come in here and talk about the topic at hand, you guys went off on a tangent, and it produced more good discussion. Keep shit like that up, if you ask me. Besides, you're still half-talking about the decency of presidents. No harm done here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harwood Butcher Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 "Ronald Reagan. Yes doc, the actor." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nate10 Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 I can't choose. I know just about nothing when it comes to history, that including our former presidents. Frankly, I sort of don't care. Llama's post was fun to read, his choice semed interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_Ray Posted February 19, 2009 Author Share Posted February 19, 2009 "Ronald Reagan. Yes doc, the actor." "Facts are stubborn things.""How can a president not be an actor?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaz The Great Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Then who's VICE-President? Jerry Lewis? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_Ray Posted February 19, 2009 Author Share Posted February 19, 2009 (edited) Then who's VICE-President? Jerry Lewis? Actually, George Bush. (Again shows his oblivion to sarcasm. ) Edited February 19, 2009 by raybob95 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaz The Great Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 At least you acknowledge it that time. Unfortunately, that wasn't sarcasm. Apparently you've never watched Back to the Future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now