First of all, you misquoted me, just like the media. Always obsessed with the soundbite. Of course you pick the soundbite that is damning to me. Hell, you didn't even post the entire sentance that your "soundbite" came from.
Jason Dean: tylerturtle:I follow the Chicago School of econo-political thought, so I have no problem with Wilson for the war. Thanks for reminding me why the "Chicago School" is nothing but a semi-moderate brand of socialism.
tylerturtle:I follow the Chicago School of econo-political thought, so I have no problem with Wilson for the war.
Thanks for reminding me why the "Chicago School" is nothing but a semi-moderate brand of socialism.
I follow that school of thought only on the issue of national defense, not because I am some closet socialist hippie (which if you knew me, you would find that I am farthest from), but because I feel that war is a necessary evil including offensive wars. Wilson was a terrible president, but not for the war. The Federal Reserve proved to be a disaster pretty quickly. There are plenty of reasons why he was a bad president, just like there are plenty of reasons why this president is a bad president. One thing that doesn't go into my determinations is whether or not they avoided war.
I would also add to tylerturtle's defense that George Reisman, a student of Mises, had this to say about Pinochet:
http://georgereisman.com/blog/2006/12/general-augusto-pinochet-is-dead.html
I would not classify him as a dictactorship sympathizer because of these views.
tylerturtle:One thing that doesn't go into my determinations is whether or not they avoided war.
But I still have some reservations about this. Could you elaborate?
tylerturtle: follow that school of thought only on the issue of national defense, not because I am some closet socialist hippie (which if you knew me, you would find that I am farthest from), but because I feel that war is a necessary evil including offensive wars. Wilson was a terrible president, but not for the war.
You are a socialist.
How do you think wars can be funded? Only with fiat money. Hippie? I wish. No, you're a bloodthirsty statist animal; the enemy of civilization. Hippies are just peaceful isolationists.
Find me a war that can be funded without debasing the currency and your point was still be without merit, but less so. War is the health of the state, and warmongers like you are savage animals; the scum of the Earth.
Well, could we try Washington on for size?
If memory serves me right, Washington was duped by some New England speculators in government debt to come to the Annapolis convention, wasn't he? The Annapolis convention would not have gone over without his participation, would it? Didn't that coup, get the whole sordid consolidated government ball rolling, which led to all the other murder and mayhem? Perhaps he was the classical example of good intentions paving the road to hell,
maaku:
You do have a point there.
However, I was basing my evaluation on the individuals performance WHILE PRESIDENT. I cannot rightfully rate his performance as President, by an act committed before he became President.
If I was evaluating the totality of Washington's life, then yes, I would rate the Constitutional Convention as a mark against him.
FDR gets my vote, too. Expanding the scope of government like it was going out of style. I need to brush up on my presidents, though. You guys are smart. I am not so smart.
This is a really hard question because when you look under each rock, all sorts of uglies crawl out. Should we ask the people of East Timor? Or Genada? or Panama? Guatemala? Columbia? -- well you pick the place. (US Report Card - Does not play well with others)
Lincoln, FDR, Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, Truman, Bush I, Bush II
Who can say worst.
How about Harry Truman for having dropped the big one and for getting us embroiled in Korea. Those two things aside, what positive contribution can you give him credit for?
I'lll say Lincoln, that should get me some brownie points with Lew.
Lincoln, FDR, Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, Truman
Yep.
I'd give my vote to FDR and also make mention that he is probably one of the most overrated presidents, too.
It's a shame that in the standard curriculum today we are all taught how FDR "saved" us from the Great Depression. It's impossible to have an honest debate with anyone about FDR who hasn't looked into the true causes Depression or else just plain waxes nostalgic about the socialist heavy-handedness of FDR's rule.
Can I change my vote to All the Above?
George Washington, a tyrant and a traitor to the American Revolution.
"Defence was an afterthought, prompted by necessity; and its introduction as a State function, though effected doubtless with a view to the strengthening of the State, was really and in principle the initiation of the State's destruction." -- Benjamin Tucker
jdunbar3:It's a shame that in the standard curriculum today we are all taught how FDR "saved" us from the Great Depression.
It's a shame that in the standard curriculum today we are all taught how FDR "saved" us from the Great Depression.
I just had a holiday gathering with my wife's side of the family. Her grandfather is a WWII vet, a POW returned by the Germans.
I asked him who was the worst president in his life. Being in his late 80s, he couldn't come up with enough memories to voice an opinion. Then I asked him "what about FDR?"
He said, "Well, FDR really did help us out of the depression." He went on to say that his mother, while his family was in great need, learned that there were good-paying new jobs created in his community by the New Deal. So she went down to apply for one, and the local officials asked her about her party affiliation. She said she was a Republican, and they said "we'll call you if something comes up."
FDR was the worst for Libertarians, he was a full out dirtbag, but at least he wasn't Huey "Screwy" Long. His assassin is a hero. I can defend Lincoln somewhat, yes, he did the greenbacks and everything else, but weren't the slaves freed, and if I get a response to this, I can bring up how the Confederates were self righteous oppurtunistic hypocrites that tried to use Federal heavy handed tactics before the Republicans organized(i posted in free trade and slavery thread). FDR-WILSON-TRUMAN-JOHN ADAMS-and just to piss people off, Ronald Reagan for being an overrated, self godifying, military industrial and national debt making machine.
1.Woodrow Wilson
2. FDR
3. LBJ
4. tie: Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43 - the reason I have these 3 after my "big 3 of statists" is because they each oversaw conflicts in which depleted uranium (which has a half-life of 4.5 billion years) was used en masse. Because of these 3, Iraq, Bosnia, and Afghanistan will be still be irradiated when our great-grandchildren are long dead.
You say Lincoln caused 600,000 deaths? FDR fire-bombed dresden? Truman dropped 2 a-bombs (which were crude compared to todays tactical nuclear weapons and cannot even approach the initial or long-lasting destructive effects)?
There is no way to estimate how many people will die or have the length and/or quality of their lives diminished dramatically because of this policy.
Sorry for getting all science-y in an economics forum, but if you want to talk about legacies, 4.5 billion years is a long time...physics, chemistry, foreign policy and economics are the pillars of my intellectual interests. And before you even ask the question, I'll answer it: yes, it does drive the ladies wild.
"No theory, no ready-made system, no book that has ever been written will save the world. I cleave to no system. I am a true seeker." - Mikhail Bakunin