Buchanan, Bush # 2, Lincoln,F.D.R, Wilson, T. R., Mckinely, LBJ, Nixon, and Jefferson, just for letting the Federalists do what they want without fighting them. In that order ( except T.J.)
Democracy is nothing more than replacing bullets with ballots
If Pro is the opposite of Con. What is the opposite of Progress?
How is Bush worse than FDR? Bush is just FDR-lite!
Don't allow leftists to play games with definitions! Some of the libertarian-leaning leftists at this forum will try to redefine "left-wing" back to its original defition (Third Estate, limited government, free-markets, laissez-faire reforms, etc.). Fine! We non-leftists can't stop them from using their own personal definitions; they can use whatever labels they want to describe any concept they want.However, they have the audacity to then use their personal definition of "left-wing" (remember, the original definition, which is no longer valid) to prove that modern leftists are more libertarian than modern rightists! They will say that libertarianism is "inherently leftist" (again, using the original, no longer valid definition), and use that to insist that we should prefer and side with modern leftists over modern rightists.
Question their motives.
It seems that Lincoln is high on the list, but I think Buchanan was bad because he did not settle sucession. His ignorance led to Lincoln's evil slaughter and dictatorship
Your right. One made SS and the the other Tried To Create a disastor, but at least FDR was smart
My teacher said something today in class that I thought you all would get a kick out of. He said "Abe Lincoln is Lennin with somewhat of a conscience."
From the line starting with Good Presidents on down to the end, how about a sample of the policies upon which you based your decision?
I'm going to predict (hoping that I'm wrong) here that Obama is going to be even worse president than Bush. He's going to continue military aggression (his website doesn't even mention the date of pullout), ruin healthcare, prolong recession by inept interference and raising taxes, waste billions on "cooling the planet", make all sorts of energy more expensive by not allowing more oil drills, more nuclear plants or whatever else the environmentalist view as harmful (practically everything). And I really doubt he's going to undo any damage that Bush has done to the civil liberties in this country. The only change that's going to be is the change for the worse.
Am I too pessimistic?
If I hear not allowed much oftener; said Sam, I'm going to get angry.
J.R.R.Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings
The problem is, Dems control everything today. So he'll probably not face opposition to any project of his. Yes, Clinton's healthcare proposal failed, but his plan that looks less socialistic to the general population will most likely go through.
I think Im gonna go with Wilson
Ironically, two most commonly mentioned presidents here are considered to be two of the best by the mainstream history and media.
Lincold freed the slaves!
FDR won the WWII and saved the country from depression!
Natalie: Ironically, two most commonly mentioned presidents here are considered to be two of the best by the mainstream history and media.
Hmm... Coincidence?
Diminishing Marginal Utility - IT'S THE LAW!
Byz, isn't this entire topic like trying to polish a turd? Best President. It's like picking the best mass murderer, liar and thief.
There are some who didn't murder at all, Harding for example. Puts him way up high, doesn't it?
I am new to the forum, but wanted to give my 2 cents in that..
Obama has already penciled in his name along with McCain/W Bush on the huge $700 billion financial bailout this year..and now decided that wasn't enough so he tapped GM/Ford/Chrysler auto industry for an additional $25 billion and he hasn't even begun his presidency...
Is Obama the straw that breaks the camel's back?
How much straw does it take to break the camel's back?
What happens once the camel's back is broken?
All interesting questions I think, anyone smarter than me with thoughts?
JFK belongs on the list.
John F. Kennedy was an inexperienced President who refused to listen to those who have been there and done that.
The Bay of Pigs: President Eisenhower told Kennedy not to sign off on the invasion until a popular Cuban government in exile has been established. And that close air support must be provided to support the invasion forces on the ground. JFK failed to take Eisenhower's advise and warnings.
The Cuban Missile Crisis: JFK gave Kruschev what he wanted. Remove NATO missiles from Turkey. This was kept a secret from the American people for twenty five years. Bobby Kennedy was willing to return GITMO back to Castro. Kruschev just wanted NATO's missiles removed from Turkey.
Vietnam: Again Eisenhower warned JFK not to get involved in a war in South Vietnam. If communist aggression or expansion is to be checked in Southeast Asia it can only succeed in Laos. JFK decided to not to take Eisenhower's advice and decided to stop communist aggression at the 17th parallel. The rest is history.
JFK also ordered the regime change of South Vietnam, President Diem and that led to Diem's murder. From then on, we were obligated to be involved in Vietnam.
LBJ ordered American combat troops in to South Vietnam because he was afraid that Bobby Kennedy would say that LBJ was soft on communism. Remember that Bobby Kennedy was still a big time hawk before he became a left wing dove.
JFK, Bobby Kennedy and the CIA: JFK put his brother, Bobby in charge of CIA special operations. Bobby Kennedy ordered the assassination of Castro. The CIA assassin who was suppose to assassinate Castro was captured in Cuba. The day the CIA assassin was to take out Castro, was they day Oswald assassinated JFK.
It scares the crap out of me when Obama is compared to JFK. Obama has less experience than JFK and JFK had very little inexperience and was tested by our enemies.
Robert Katz: There are some who didn't murder at all, Harding for example. Puts him way up high, doesn't it?
I would agree. Many Americans place a lot of value on how many people their leaders can slaughter.
liberty student: Robert Katz: There are some who didn't murder at all, Harding for example. Puts him way up high, doesn't it? I would agree. Many Americans place a lot of value on how many people their leaders can slaughter.
The whole citizen / soldier distinction; if more citizens at least witnessed war in person (not necessarily as soldiers), or at least not sheltered from the horrors of it from the State, I'd imagine a lot more people would change their tune about the value of a human life. The State needs it sheep to be blind until they hit the battlefield, however. Whoever survives the shock of it all is a Darwinian Hero.
Nitroadict:The whole citizen / soldier distinction; if more citizens at least witnessed war in person (not necessarily as soldiers), or at least not sheltered from the horrors of it from the State, I'd imagine a lot more people would change their tune about the value of a human life. The State needs it sheep to be blind until they hit the battlefield, however. Whoever survives the shock of it all is a Darwinian Hero.
The State needs it sheep to be blind until they hit the battlefield, however. Whoever survives the shock of it all is a Darwinian Hero.
I don't think people care. Our movies are meant to increase our resistance to gore and death. Our video games glorify killing and conquest.
People care about war, when it hits them in the pocket book. When it threatens directly, their own children.
But sadly, most Americans are now sheep. Or they are completely vile, believing in the glory, nay reveling in the empire's looting and destruction.
Sorry to get all anti-American, but I feel the same way about Sheeple everywhere regardless of nation. It's just that Americans seem to provoke and supply weapons to almost every single conflict, whether their blood is spilled or not.
Nitroadict:The whole citizen / soldier distinction; if more citizens at least witnessed war in person (not necessarily as soldiers), or at least not sheltered from the horrors of it from the State, I'd imagine a lot more people would change their tune about the value of a human life.
"Starship Troopers", anyone? :)
liberty student: Nitroadict:The whole citizen / soldier distinction; if more citizens at least witnessed war in person (not necessarily as soldiers), or at least not sheltered from the horrors of it from the State, I'd imagine a lot more people would change their tune about the value of a human life. The State needs it sheep to be blind until they hit the battlefield, however. Whoever survives the shock of it all is a Darwinian Hero. I don't think people care. Our movies are meant to increase our resistance to gore and death. Our video games glorify killing and conquest. People care about war, when it hits them in the pocket book. When it threatens directly, their own children. But sadly, most Americans are now sheep. Or they are completely vile, believing in the glory, nay reveling in the empire's looting and destruction. Sorry to get all anti-American, but I feel the same way about Sheeple everywhere regardless of nation. It's just that Americans seem to provoke and supply weapons to almost every single conflict, whether their blood is spilled or not.
I disagree, partially, with charging culture to blame, as there always has been a degree of expository and/or entertainment involving violence & death in cultures throughout history (perhaps out of a need for individuals to cope with the ultimate unknown that is death). Then again, Statism has been around for a while as well. However, it would be in the State's interest to encourage a culture of coercion & a conflict view of society, both of which I think infiltrates culture of various nations (especially the USA) at every level possible. For example, one can take the movie Resevior Dogs has largely glorying coercive violence or one can take the eventual outcome of the movie as an expository on the almost futile & destructive nature of said coercive violence. Recently, there was an excellent article at LRC regarding the conflict view of society in the U.S. that sort of relates to what I'm talking about: http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/barriers-broken.html. As for the pocketbook remark, this is sadly & easily obfuscated with the myth / half-truth of WWII revving up the economy & ending the previous poverty of the Great Depression (half-truth, since we already had a war-based economy, but yea). As for being anti-American: poppycock, I say. Many Founding Fathers would be called "anti" American nowadays, by the leering idiots who cheer for their political teams like a hot day in the football stadium, then line up at the polls like they're winning a lottery ticket. Recently, with a dreadful conversation with relatives over Election-Day, I was called "anti-american" for essentially "not picking a side", & criticizing everything else everyone had to say. Truly one of the most disgusted moments (personally) this country has brought me so far.
liberty student:Sorry to get all anti-American, but I feel the same way about Sheeple everywhere regardless of nation. It's just that Americans seem to provoke and supply weapons to almost every single conflict, whether their blood is spilled or not.
AKs are more popular than any American weapons :)
Nitroadict:Many Founding Fathers would be called "anti" American nowadays, by the leering idiots who cheer for their political teams like a hot day in the football stadium, then line up at the polls like they're winning a lottery ticket.
Yes, rich racist white men.
Natalie: Nitroadict:Many Founding Fathers would be called "anti" American nowadays, by the leering idiots who cheer for their political teams like a hot day in the football stadium, then line up at the polls like they're winning a lottery ticket. Yes, rich racist white men.
I did not glorify the Founding Fathers to exempt them from such valid criticism. I meant that their Constitutional beliefs would cause their nationalism to be called into question by the current "entitlement" generation, looked over by the Statist Welfare/Warfare machine.
Mark B.: I will repost what I posted in our local newspaper forum on this topic a few days ago. Needless to say, it got quite a different reaction there. :) The disastrous Presidents: 1. Abraham Lincoln - The slaughter of 600,000 Americans in an unlawful war of conquest. The forcible overthrow and subjugation of the Confederate States. To many abuses of power to even list. Lincoln's tyranny set the pattern for the tyranny of the Federal Government and the subsequent Presidents, all the way to the current one. George Bush is merely raising the bar that was first established by Lincoln and his four thousand doesn't hold a candle to Lincoln's 600,000. To further add to his crimes is that he brought to fruition the centralization of economic power in Washington, D.C., that had long been pushed by the Federalists and later the Whigs, and long resisted by the Jeffersonian Republicans and Jacksonian Democrats. 2. Franklin Delano Roosevelt - He never did solve the depression, by the way. He took the bad situation he received from Hoover and totally f***ed it up beyond repair. He did demonstrate once and for all that Keynesian Economics does not work. Sadly, most modern citizens have never absorbed this lesson. His greatest crime was the ending of the gold standard and confiscation of gold from Americans. His brutal intimidation and overthrow of the once independent Judiciary Branch of government also stands to his disgrace. Maneuvering the United States into conflict with Japan again stands to his disgrace. FDR continues to screw this country from his grave, with the many millstones he tied around America's neck. 3. Woodrow Wilson - His greatest crime, for which America may never recover, was the establishment of the Federal Reserve. In one stroke of the pen, he forever sold America out to the tyranny of inflation. He also set in motion the events leading up to the Great Depression. His needless involvement of this country in World War I and his incompetent foreign policy would end up dooming the world to experience World War II. The failures: 1. Theodore Roosevelt - Advocacy and advancement of central banking and his ultra progressive policies. 2. Herbert Hoover - Turning an ordinary "panic" into a true disastrous with his interventionist policies. In fact, Hoover's policies would very much foreshadow FDR's later policies. In both cases they failed, badly. 3. Lyndon Baines Johnson - The disastrous Great Society and Vietnam. 4. Tie. William McKinley - advocacy of central banking and centralization of economic planning. Also, imperialist foreign policy. 4. Tie. George W. Bush - No real need to explain this. :) 4. Tie. Harry Truman - Use of an atomic weapon on a civilian city. 5. Tie. Richard Nixon - Bad economic policy, particularly the ending of the gold exchange standard. He does get a reprieve for his foreign policy, which is why he is not tied for 4th with the others. 5. Tie. Jimmy Carter - Just general ineptness for the Presidency. It should be noted that government expanded both absolutely AND as a percentage of the GDP during the administrations of the eleven Presidents listed. It should be noted that the partisan breakdown is six Republicans and five Democrats, lest it be thought that I considered either party worth a damn. At least the Democrats WERE a damn good party, up until 1896, that is. <below this line was originally posted as a separate post> Good Presidents <defined as those Presidents who abided by Article II of the Constitution and did not fundamentally abuse their offices, disregarding minor scandals> 1. Grover Cleveland 2. Martin van Buren 3. Calvin Coolidge 4. Warren G. Harding <this President is noted for his excellent handling of the panic of 1921, caused by WWI inflation under Wilson, if Herbert Hoover had only taken heed of this man's excellent example.> Adequate Presidents <generally as above, but had serious incidents during their presidency> 1. Thomas Jefferson - Failed to abolish the Bank of the United States established under the Federalists and failed to undo Federalist tariffs. Also foreign policy blunders. 2. James Madison - Same as Jefferson, plus War of 1812. 3. Andrew Jackson - Overall an excellent President, however his brutal treatment of Indians gives him a major black eye. 4. Dwight Eisenhower - Foreign policy problems. 5. George Washington - Washington suffers mainly from being under the influence of Alexander Hamilton. The Bank of the United States is his major failure, followed by suppression of the Whiskey Rebellion. To his credit, however, he kept the Presidency in deferment to the Congress. Honorable mentions that I have not quite placed yet. James Monroe and John Tyler. The remaining pre-1896 Democratic Presidents, Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan deserve some positive mention for at least trying, although both were ineffective. Andrew Johnson merits a thumbs up for standing up to the radical Republicans. As for the rest of them, they go into the mediocre category. In chronological order the mediocres would be: John Adams John Quincy Adams William Henry Harrison James Polk Zachary Taylor Milliard Fillmore U.S. Grant <borderline for the failure range> Rutherford Hayes James Garfield Chester Arthur Benjamin Harrison William Taft John Kennedy Gerald Ford Ronald Reagan George H.W. Bush Bill Clinton
I will repost what I posted in our local newspaper forum on this topic a few days ago. Needless to say, it got quite a different reaction there. :)
The disastrous Presidents:
1. Abraham Lincoln - The slaughter of 600,000 Americans in an unlawful war of conquest. The forcible overthrow and subjugation of the Confederate States. To many abuses of power to even list. Lincoln's tyranny set the pattern for the tyranny of the Federal Government and the subsequent Presidents, all the way to the current one. George Bush is merely raising the bar that was first established by Lincoln and his four thousand doesn't hold a candle to Lincoln's 600,000. To further add to his crimes is that he brought to fruition the centralization of economic power in Washington, D.C., that had long been pushed by the Federalists and later the Whigs, and long resisted by the Jeffersonian Republicans and Jacksonian Democrats.
2. Franklin Delano Roosevelt - He never did solve the depression, by the way. He took the bad situation he received from Hoover and totally f***ed it up beyond repair. He did demonstrate once and for all that Keynesian Economics does not work. Sadly, most modern citizens have never absorbed this lesson. His greatest crime was the ending of the gold standard and confiscation of gold from Americans. His brutal intimidation and overthrow of the once independent Judiciary Branch of government also stands to his disgrace. Maneuvering the United States into conflict with Japan again stands to his disgrace. FDR continues to screw this country from his grave, with the many millstones he tied around America's neck.
3. Woodrow Wilson - His greatest crime, for which America may never recover, was the establishment of the Federal Reserve. In one stroke of the pen, he forever sold America out to the tyranny of inflation. He also set in motion the events leading up to the Great Depression. His needless involvement of this country in World War I and his incompetent foreign policy would end up dooming the world to experience World War II.
The failures:
1. Theodore Roosevelt - Advocacy and advancement of central banking and his ultra progressive policies.
2. Herbert Hoover - Turning an ordinary "panic" into a true disastrous with his interventionist policies. In fact, Hoover's policies would very much foreshadow FDR's later policies. In both cases they failed, badly.
3. Lyndon Baines Johnson - The disastrous Great Society and Vietnam.
4. Tie. William McKinley - advocacy of central banking and centralization of economic planning. Also, imperialist foreign policy.
4. Tie. George W. Bush - No real need to explain this. :)
4. Tie. Harry Truman - Use of an atomic weapon on a civilian city.
5. Tie. Richard Nixon - Bad economic policy, particularly the ending of the gold exchange standard. He does get a reprieve for his foreign policy, which is why he is not tied for 4th with the others.
5. Tie. Jimmy Carter - Just general ineptness for the Presidency.
It should be noted that government expanded both absolutely AND as a percentage of the GDP during the administrations of the eleven Presidents listed. It should be noted that the partisan breakdown is six Republicans and five Democrats, lest it be thought that I considered either party worth a damn.
At least the Democrats WERE a damn good party, up until 1896, that is.
<below this line was originally posted as a separate post>
Good Presidents <defined as those Presidents who abided by Article II of the Constitution and did not fundamentally abuse their offices, disregarding minor scandals>
1. Grover Cleveland
2. Martin van Buren
3. Calvin Coolidge
4. Warren G. Harding <this President is noted for his excellent handling of the panic of 1921, caused by WWI inflation under Wilson, if Herbert Hoover had only taken heed of this man's excellent example.>
Adequate Presidents <generally as above, but had serious incidents during their presidency>
1. Thomas Jefferson - Failed to abolish the Bank of the United States established under the Federalists and failed to undo Federalist tariffs. Also foreign policy blunders.
2. James Madison - Same as Jefferson, plus War of 1812.
3. Andrew Jackson - Overall an excellent President, however his brutal treatment of Indians gives him a major black eye.
4. Dwight Eisenhower - Foreign policy problems.
5. George Washington - Washington suffers mainly from being under the influence of Alexander Hamilton. The Bank of the United States is his major failure, followed by suppression of the Whiskey Rebellion. To his credit, however, he kept the Presidency in deferment to the Congress.
Honorable mentions that I have not quite placed yet.
James Monroe and John Tyler.
The remaining pre-1896 Democratic Presidents, Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan deserve some positive mention for at least trying, although both were ineffective. Andrew Johnson merits a thumbs up for standing up to the radical Republicans.
As for the rest of them, they go into the mediocre category. In chronological order the mediocres would be:
John Adams
John Quincy Adams
William Henry Harrison
James Polk
Zachary Taylor
Milliard Fillmore
U.S. Grant <borderline for the failure range>
Rutherford Hayes
James Garfield
Chester Arthur
Benjamin Harrison
William Taft
John Kennedy
Gerald Ford
Ronald Reagan
George H.W. Bush
Bill Clinton
Where is George Washingston on this, or any, list? He was a president, wasn't he?
Luis Buenaventura: Where is George Washingston on this, or any, list? He was a president, wasn't he?
He was on the adequate list, #5. Seems like you skimmed right over him when you were reading.
Tex2002ans: Luis Buenaventura: Where is George Washingston on this, or any, list? He was a president, wasn't he? He was on the adequate list, #5. Seems like you skimmed right over him when you were reading.
Seems like I need new glasses, again.
Bumping this to see if Barack Obama has entered a ranking in his short time
He's trying his hardest to make it to number one on the worst. YES WE CAN
Aristotle100: Let's not forget Andrew Jackson people. Remember he voted against the nation bank
He did kill off the national bank. But then he put the government's money in private banks belonging to his own political supporters - the so called. "pet banks".
I'm officially placing Obama in as the worst president in the history of the United States.
Political Atheists Blog
Worst? I think FDR or Lincoln for sheer destruction, but for general buffoonery, who can top our loveable W?
I would like to give Andrew Jackson some honorable mention, though. Sure, he was a total psycho, even by the standards of his own time, but he IS the only president in US history to take down a central bank.
The Rev
Lifes a piece of shit, when you look at it
Life's a laugh and death's a joke, it's true
Just remember it's all a show, keep em laughing as you go
Just remember that the last laugh is on you
I will start Mr. Obama off at position #12 from worst, after Jimmy Carter, within the "fail" range.
Obviously you can't judge a man who has been in office only 60 days on his achievements or lack thereof, so I am going by his words, intentions and actions. Currently, his words, intentions and actions are those of a man on his way to disaster.
My feeling is that he will end closer to worst, but for that we must wait and see.
For comparison, I currently have George W. Bush tied at 7th from worst, with McKinley and Truman.
I think it is far to early to rank obama as one of the worst ten yet. If he has implemented some bone headed policies thier full effects have yet to be felt, plus he hasn't drafted yet nor killed as many people as his past 3 predecessors yet. I still don't think he has reached the heights of TR, FDR, Truman, LBJ or Wilson yet by a long shot.
For the Rrecord, if I had to pick the worst it would be TR as he seems to be the alpha for all things bad. His precedents were poison that have never left the system. Lincoln and McKinley may have been before him, but I don't think they had as much of an impact in philosophy the way that TR had, they were more proto types.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
Other than Lincoln, I can't think of a single president that managed to wreck so much havoc after he went into the ground. Wilson probably comes close.
I still say Wilson is the worst.
Once Obama matches Bush in international blunders contributing to more death, he will enter the top 10. He intends to pass Bush economically before his 100 days is over. Maybe that will stop him at a single term.
A quick note on Lincoln and the Civil War, the South did fire first...
[edit] Nevermind. The South told the North to give up their forts, and the North refused.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
Spideynw: A quick note on Lincoln and the Civil War, the South did fire first...
After Lincoln sent 75,000 troops to invade the South to end secession.
aludanyi:Bush Jr. is also in the club, but I don't think he is comparable with those three.
Excellant resource by the way, thanks!
Coolidge presided over the 20's, when the Federal Reserve pumped massive amounts of credit into the system. I don't think he can be called a good president.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
[email protected] | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap