Who Was the Best US President in History?

[Greased_Lightning]

Seems an appropriate topic considering Astro's.

 

For my money it's Teddy Roosevelt. War hero, Peace Prize winner, conservationist, trust-buster, an American icon.

[Cancer+]

FDR was the best. The man had polio and was elected 3 times. He brought us out of the Great Depression.

[Tiq]

Abraham Lincoln. He saved the nation from self-destruction. He was the guy who did what had to be done in order to presever the Union, and in some cases, he even broke the law to do it. He was flawed, for sure, but let's face it...few people during that time could have done what he had done. Some people might have just let the Confederacy operate separately from the Union, but Lincoln fought for its preservation.

 

That being said, he is not my favorite president, though the top hat is cool. I'm a Clinton fan...though Nixon is one of those wacky characters that intrigue me.

[SeVeR]

In relation to my previous posts.

 

2nd World War

 

FDR: The Roosevelt family had been New York bankers since the 18th Century. FDR's uncle Frederick was on the original Federal Reserve board. Some may theorize that FDR was very sympathetic to the interests of the international bankers.

 

FDR's Secretary of War Henry Stimson:

 

"The question was how should we maneouver them into firing the first shot... it is desirable to make sure the Japanese be the ones to do this so that there should remain no doubt as to who were the aggressors"

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Stimson#_ref-0

 

FDR's actions to provoke Japan:

1. Halted all of Japan's imports of American petroleum.

2. Froze all Japanese !@#$%^&*ets in the US.

3. Gave public loans to Nationalist China and the British, who were fighting Japan.

This is in violation of international war rules and was done PRIOR to Pearl Harbour.

 

The prelude to war

The attack on Pearl Harbour was known weeks in advance, it was provoked, and some may theorize it was wanted.

Three days before the attack, Australian intelligence told the American government about a Japanese task force moving towards Pearl Harbour, ignored by Roosevelt.

 

The price we pay

2400 soldiers dead.... 1 million American citizens volunteer to take their place.

 

Playing both sides

The Nazi War effort was powered by I.G. Farben who produced 84% of Germany's explosives. Their chief partner was: US Standard Oil, a company owned by the Federal Reserve international banker J.D. Rockefellar. Without US Standard Oil the Nazi's would not have had a viable air-force.

 

The Bush family line

The Union Banking Corp of New York City financed Hitlers rise to power and much of the Nazi war effort. At the end of the war they were seized for having billions of dollars of Nazi money in their vaults, and were exposed as a Nazi money laundering organisation under the "Trading with the Enemy Act". The director and VP of the Union Banking Corp was none other than Prescott Bush, GWB's very own grandfather and the father of Bush Sr.

 

Vietnam

Gulf of Tonkin incident: Staged, brought America into the Vietnam War.

Rules on the restrictions of American troops in the Vietnam war: Made the war last.

 

1st World War

The Lusitania, a passenger liner, is sunk by the Germans provoking outrage among the American public and bringing America into the war.

Fact: The Lusitania was loaded with explosives and sailed into German waters deliberately.

The Price: 1200 lives.

 

Conclusions

Private international bankers who created the Federal Reserve control the entire American economy by being able to revalue the dollar. (FACT)

These bankers want war, as war results in the government borrowing money from the Federal Reserve at interest. (FACT)

The bankers influence or control the American government through known aristocrats such as the Bush family and the Clinton family. (Based on the evidence, LIKELY)

The American government creates the necessary conditions for war and makes the war last. (VERY LIKELY)

 

Example: Iraq

9/11 and the invasion of Afghanistan removes any public opposition to war through the rejuvination of the nationalist movement known simply as "Patriotism".

WMD's cited as a reason. (The necessary conditions)

Terrorists cited as an enemy that can never be wiped out. (The war has lasted)

WMDs and Saddams links to terrorism have since been proven to be a load of bs. (The inevitable scandal)

 

The 9/11 Condition

1. How was an unqualified (and quite frankly terrible) pilot able to fly a plane into the Pentagon?

2. Why was there no wreckage found at the Pentagon?

3. Why was the only security tape that could verify the Pentagon attack confiscated?

4. Why are 7 of the supposed 19 hijackers still alive?

5. Why did Building Seven of the WTC collapse after never being hit? (any fires could not have melted steel girders)

6. Why have architects admitted that a plane could never have brought down a WTC tower?

7. Why is there evidence of the steel girders in the towers being cut, at the base, in traditional demolition style?

8. Why did the American government fake a video to incriminate Bin Laden?

9. Why are we in Iraq?

10. Why are so many people dead...?

Edited August 9, 2007 by SeVeR

[Greased_Lightning]

Uhm, off topic?

 

I disagree with the FDR one especially.. the fact that he had polio and was reelected isn't all that germane. If there were TVs in every home back then I doubt he would have made 3 terms. The guy had leg braces to make him 'stand' in public speeches. That itself isn't good criteria in my opinion because, to borrow from some joke today, big deal about his polio, a re!@#$%^&*ed president has been elected twice but you don't give him the prize. Regarding his economic policies, after numerous failed programs from his administration, one was bound to finally succeed after the years of depression. Also, the fact that Europe was rearming itself and the US was a major trading partner in that did a lot. And as for how much of that was his idea is up for grabs, as most would agree that those kind of programs are hatched by some underling and then promoted by the higher-ups.

 

Lincoln is too much of a knee-jerk reaction for best president. He didn't really save the nation as it divided under his watch anyway, he was just lucky that the vast advantage the North had in troops, material, and transport was enough to overcome their idiocy. They were also lucky enough that in a few key battles, southern generals didn't press the advantage and crush entire union armies (they could have easily taken D.C.). Sure he guided through the Civil War but at a huge cost. He reinstated incompetent generals who let the war drag on far too long, he put in place the policies that sparked the secession even after being told the effect they would have. Even the move to free the slaves in southern states was more of a war strategy than an actual social reform. Had the south not seceeded, slavery would have continued much longer in those states. No question that the magnanimous terms he set at the end helped heal the wounds, but the division between northern and southern states continued (continues?) for decades.

Edited August 9, 2007 by Greased_Lightning

[Samapico]

Lol sever... it looks like you watched the whole Zeitgeist movie a couple of times...

[SeVeR]

Zeitgeist was an eye-opener in that respect. I already knew about the history of Christianity, the Federal Reserve, the criminality of income tax, and the 9/11 conspiracy theory, but the pattern of 20th century wars really linked it together. I only watched it once, but when someone mentioned FDR i just had to dish it out.

[Tiq]

Lincoln is too much of a knee-jerk reaction for best president. He didn't really save the nation as it divided under his watch anyway, he was just lucky that the vast advantage the North had in troops, material, and transport was enough to overcome their idiocy. They were also lucky enough that in a few key battles, southern generals didn't press the advantage and crush entire union armies (they could have easily taken D.C.). Sure he guided through the Civil War but at a huge cost. He reinstated incompetent generals who let the war drag on far too long, he put in place the policies that sparked the secession even after being told the effect they would have. Even the move to free the slaves in southern states was more of a war strategy than an actual social reform. Had the south not seceeded, slavery would have continued much longer in those states. No question that the magnanimous terms he set at the end helped heal the wounds, but the division between northern and southern states continued (continues?) for decades.

 

Secession was inevitable. If you remember, there had already been a prior secession by a southern state...I believe it was South Carolina. So secession had been in the works long before Lincoln took office. Admittedly, everyone underestimated the South. But a northern victory was almost inevitable, as Lincoln was not going to budge from his position for anything. In a war of attrition, the South had no chance. It's easy to look back now and highlight mistakes he made, and that luck is a factor. But in such a dire situation, it is almost impossible to succeed without luck. At the end of the day, it was Lincoln who managed to preserve the Union, and that is arguably the most important thing any president has done. You can say that other people would have done it, but Lincoln was the man who actually did it. You can look back at key battles that the southern generals gave to the North, and form "what if?" theories. You can question his choice of generals, but they managed to get the job done (albeit with luck on their side, and a massive cost of life). The Emancipation Proclamation was indeed more strategy than anything. I'm not saying the man's a saint. He was flawed, and perhaps a racist. Secession happened under his watch, but that does not necessarily make him the cause of secession. There were a variety of factors that sparked secession, leading all the way back to the drafting of the Cons!@#$%^&*ution. In the end, Lincoln did more to preserve the Union than any previous president, and any president has after him.

[AstroProdigy]

Its hard to say. JFK or Clinton I'd say. JFK most likely would be if he wasn't !@#$%^&*!@#$%^&*inated.

[Greased_Lightning]

The JFK thing pisses me off so much that people say Oh if only he hadn't been killed everything would have been great! Such a load of crap. JFK had some pretty nice screwups during his short presidency. As far as Clinton, again, history will judge, but he had a fairly calm world for his 8 years in office.

[AstroProdigy]

JFK managed to take on racism issues; something only done with Lincoln. He also led the country through the Cuban Missile Crisis and was willing to compromise. Anyway, he was a very like able person and he could have used that for a successful 8 years.

 

Clinton had a fairly calm world, but at the same time he had no ability to use the world stage as a claim to success (Reagan) and helped along the biggest boom in US history. Bush would have turned the world against us while wasting money and lives (probably would have invaded Iraq), squandered all extra money from the boom on tax cuts for the rich, and cut any program he could.

Edited August 10, 2007 by AstroProdigy

[NBVegita]

Clinton was a decent president, not without his flaws, but as stated he had a relatively quiet term, and himself made many military mistakes, but they never become broadcasted. 9/11 was the catalyst behind everything that has happened in the Bush presidency. If 9/11 had not occurred I guarantee that his approval rating would still be well over 50%.

 

And ironically Truman, for the last 3 years of his term did not get above the low 30's for approval rating, and still has the all time lowest 22% approval rating, yet is cited at being a good president.

 

The problem is that the american people complain too much. And if they can't find anything good to complain about they complain about nothing. I think its plain disgusting how the media in our own country spends so much time trying to release propaganda against our OWN !@#$%^&* COUNTRY!

 

Our country is never going to be united. There are too many special rights groups, people making big deals out of things that shouldn't bother us. People always fighting to be "equal but better". For christs sake in a poll where 87% of hispanics agreed that the national language should be english, it was ruled "uncons!@#$%^&*utional" to make the country's national language english.

 

Now I'm not saying not to fight or complain or look for the truth in matters. But there hits a point where when you are digging to find dirt just for the sake of digging, ie making the cia release the reports for the last 30 years on assassination attempts, is just rediculous.

 

Everyone points to the government when something is wrong. Well I'm saying that it's not our government thats wrong, at least for a part, it is us, as citizens who are doing the wrong. We are the ones putting politicians in office. We are the ones telling them what to lobby for. We are the ones fighting to p!@#$%^&* laws, then complain about those same laws one they're passed. Politicians do a lot of their own accord, and for that we only have the blame of electing them to office. But next time you start complaining about a law, policy or program, take a good hard look at it, and really decide if it was the politicians fault for it being in place, or ours.

[SeVeR]

We are the ones putting politicians in office. We are the ones telling them what to lobby for.

Not exactly, we are given a "choice" of two candidates to vote for, and those candidates can both be just as corrupt as eachother.

 

We are not telling them what to lobby for either. The people who pay their election funds do that. If anything, what we lobby for is what the media tells us to lobby for based on whatever emotional and sarcastically presented fact-free issue is being plastered over Fox News. The people who own these media outlets have their political agendas and its openly obvious what they are and how they're influencing public opinion. You can trace the link from the public to the media to the government to the people who pay for the government and thats how we are controlled.

[NBVegita]

You can only scapegoat so far. When does it become our fault for being controlled? When does it become our fault that we continually vote for corrupt politicians? And if things are truly as bad as you say, when does it become our fault for not staging a revolution?

[SeVeR]

What a good question.

 

The control of the few over the many could be equated to the control of the strong over the weak and from a Darwinian perspective it could be deemed the right method of government. A democracy could be equated to a society where the weak are given too much power, something that is ultimately pernicious. It's a toss up between nature and morality. Nature is grounded in fact whereas morality is derived from nature and is thus secondary to the survival of the self.

 

To fault those in control from a Survivalist perspective we could say that the power they wield over the masses presents a threat to their survival. However, if they are confident of keeping the populace in the dark, then how can we fault them?

 

Alternately morality raises its ugly head and says "help the weak".

 

What it's really saying is: "help the weak to become strong for they will help you to eliminate those who hold power over you". That is perfectly logical. It's not charity, it's empathy for a survivalist purpose.

 

The problem still remains: Are these "controllers" wrong to be doing what they're doing? At the moment i have to answer `No', but it's my utter imperative to see that they are taken down from their position of power.

 

Anyway, it must be and always was our fault for allowing ourselves to be subjugated. It began with the election of officials who were too weak and corrupt to oppose the creation of the Federal Reserve. It is our fault currently for not staging a revolution to bring an end to it. However, we have been given enough freedom to make our lives tolerable, and thus many will make the choice not to risk their lives for the price of further freedom. The process of educating the people cannot be halted or reversed, and inevitably the corrupt will be weeded out through our appeals for politicians who want to abolish corruption. It's either a long term peaceful solution or a bloody revolution. The risks of the long term solution are that our freedoms may continue to be eroded until no amount of education will heal the wounds. That would be almost as bad as death. A bloody revolution may not be so bloody if both sides acknowledge a distaste for civil war and agree to hammer out an agreement. The mere threat of a revolution may be enough... or it could just spark the CIA into an assassination frenzy.

 

It is a hard one to answer.

Edited August 10, 2007 by SeVeR

[Shran]

I'd have to say John F. Kennedy. He ordered our troops out of Vietnam and was thanked with a bullet in the head. If he was allowed to finish his term in office I think he could have done a lot for America. Sadly, he wasn't given the chance.

[Greased_Lightning]

On a Darwinian system, neither JFK nor FDR can be the best president, because FDR shouldn't have been allowed to p!@#$%^&* on inferior genes in the susceptibility to polio, and JFK because he lacked the necessary cranial density to deflect the bullet.

 

That felt stupid even typing it lol.

 

Amending my post, Washington was !@#$%^&* good, I think better than Lincoln. Teddy's still my guy. Bully Ho!

[AstroProdigy]

Clinton was a decent president, not without his flaws, but as stated he had a relatively quiet term, and himself made many military mistakes, but they never become broadcasted. 9/11 was the catalyst behind everything that has happened in the Bush presidency. If 9/11 had not occurred I guarantee that his approval rating would still be well over 50%.

 

And ironically Truman, for the last 3 years of his term did not get above the low 30's for approval rating, and still has the all time lowest 22% approval rating, yet is cited at being a good president.

 

The problem is that the american people complain too much. And if they can't find anything good to complain about they complain about nothing. I think its plain disgusting how the media in our own country spends so much time trying to release propaganda against our OWN !@#$%^&* COUNTRY!

 

Our country is never going to be united. There are too many special rights groups, people making big deals out of things that shouldn't bother us. People always fighting to be "equal but better". For christs sake in a poll where 87% of hispanics agreed that the national language should be english, it was ruled "uncons!@#$%^&*utional" to make the country's national language english.

 

Now I'm not saying not to fight or complain or look for the truth in matters. But there hits a point where when you are digging to find dirt just for the sake of digging, ie making the cia release the reports for the last 30 years on assassination attempts, is just rediculous.

 

Everyone points to the government when something is wrong. Well I'm saying that it's not our government thats wrong, at least for a part, it is us, as citizens who are doing the wrong. We are the ones putting politicians in office. We are the ones telling them what to lobby for. We are the ones fighting to p!@#$%^&* laws, then complain about those same laws one they're passed. Politicians do a lot of their own accord, and for that we only have the blame of electing them to office. But next time you start complaining about a law, policy or program, take a good hard look at it, and really decide if it was the politicians fault for it being in place, or ours.

Bush's approval ratings had already plummeted due to his illegitimate election and constant vacations before 9/11. 9/11 is what saved his presidency. Anyway, you can't really blame Clinton for what happened in Somalia and I hardly think saving the Bosniaks and Albanians from genocide is a "mistake". He tried to commit to a less selfish foreign policy. Kosovo had nothing to offer us economically, but it was the right thing to do. We should have also acted in Rwanda, but the public support was so against it and it happened so quickly what do you expect? It's not like Bush has done anything for the people in Darfur despite the years of warning for the ongoing conflict.

 

Truman had successes to point to. When history judges presidents it tends to focus on the successes. Bush has no successes. Everything he's touched has gone downhill. Back when our media was blindly following the president and not being factual you had no problem? The job of reporters is to be skeptics. They are an extra oversight of the government and if they just blindly follow the president it's like Congress blindly following the president (and they did that too).

 

Our country was extremely united after 9/11, but instead of using that to help us, Bush used it for his own political ends. He milked it as much as he could until we were too divided for him to milk it any further. We will be united if we all use our brains and don't let politicians use us.

 

Making the national language English is stupid. We've never had English as our official language. It is part of the American way. Our melting pot culture means we will not force others cons!@#$%^&*utionally to speak English as that is their choice. We already have very strong economic pressures; there's no reason to destroy an American legacy just for people who think America belongs to 8th generation Anglo-Saxons. The people who think we should be "polite" and not question the government are the people who don't value our democracy. Honestly now, when Clinton got a blow job all the Republicans thought it was their CONS!@#$%^&*UTIONAL RIGHT to know everything, but now political matters are none of our business? If we are the ones putting politicians in office then ignoring the things they do because its "not appropriate" will only continue a cycle of electing corrupt people.

[SeVeR]

Lol Greased, should Stephen Hawking have been destroyed at birth to cancel out his genes? Not at all. Physical health is of ever decreasing importance in our intellectual society. Darwinism is more complicated than it appears.

[Greased_Lightning]

If you are talking about survival of the fittest or the law of nature, then the passing on of genes is the paramount factor. Beneficial genes, those that increase odds for a successful reproduction, should become more prevalent at the expense of weaker genes that either have a neutral or detrimental effect to reproduction. I don't think that anyone can argue that Professor Hawking's condition isn't one that would seriously hinder successful reproduction. Intelligence does play a part as an evolutional advantage, however intelligence combined with a functionless body is not enough, in a natural setting, to offset the weaknesses.

 

Should he have, of course not. But in a natural setting deprived of morality, it would be the logical move. Quantum physics hasn't exactly helped the whales has it?

 

Note: My earlier post was made in jokingly, not to be taken seriously as something I actually believe, hence the lol. lol.

Edited August 11, 2007 by Greased_Lightning

[Tiq]

On a Darwinian system, neither JFK nor FDR can be the best president, because FDR shouldn't have been allowed to p!@#$%^&* on inferior genes in the susceptibility to polio, and JFK because he lacked the necessary cranial density to deflect the bullet.

 

These are the statements I come to these forums for.

 

It's either Lincoln or Washington for me. Washington set the standard, Lincoln preserved the Union. Few have done more for their nations.

[SeVeR]

Greased: In a natural setting deprived of traditional morality we would still value the intellectual ability of Stephen Hawking to further the progress of the spieces through his innovate thinking and contributions to science. Brains such as his may one day save the entire planet. Anyone who understands the role of darwinian survivalism in todays culture would never dream of eliminating someone based solely on a physical disability. If there is the potential for great intellectual ablity (and there usually is) then it's our role as a spieces to allow that potential to emerge.

 

So i have to disagree with you. Even if you think about it in terms of genes: If we want our genes to propagate then we need people like Stephen Hawking to help guarantee our survival through their furtherment of the spieces.

 

You seem to be equating a survivalist society with a basic one, and while it is true that in the past we may have been more survivalist (in the conventional physical sense) our current society if it were to become survivalist would attribute massive value to people like Stephen Hawking.

 

I realise the second part about cranial density was a joke, but i replied because i could see the first part wasn't (and you proved that with the post i'm replying to).

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "Quantum Physics" hasn't helped the whales. Whales didn't develop quantum physics. They are of course a different spieces, and our development of Quantum physics has nothing to do with helping whales to survive. This analogy is also why i think you are equating a survivalist society to a basic, caveman, tribal society. That is simply not the case.

Edited August 11, 2007 by SeVeR

[Falcoknight]

This entire topic is flawed because I have not yet been elected.

[AstroProdigy]

Washington maybe because he is the only president who actually had enough influence to destroy our democracy and become king. He steadfastly supported democracy, however, and even set a precedent of a 2 term limit despite no legal obligation in order to prevent a president from becoming too powerful.

[Greased_Lightning]

Actually, the first part was a joke, if it hadn't been I would also have mentioned Washington's bad teeth, Polk's sterility, Lincoln's color blindness, Teddy's nearsightedness and whole list of maladies suffered by former presidents. Also, since polio isn't a genetic disease and is rather a viral one for which there isn't genetic resistance (unless some undo!@#$%^&*ented person somewhere which we would probably never know anyway), my statement that passing on of polio susceptible genes was in itself a joke of absurdity. Please don't tell me when I'm not joking as I think I have a better handle on that than you do , if I was actually serious about that crap I'd be a frickin Nazi.

 

What I was referring to in the example of Prof. Hawking is that in survival of the fittest, disregarding morality, where the individual is concerned with individual survival and propogation to continue the species, and not survival of the species as a whole, the resources that must be spent to keep alive an individual that can't sustain itself would be detrimental to others with a better chance. Again, basic genetics dictates that traits that increase chances for successful repro. are passed on with greater frequency while those that have no effect or decrease those chances become rarer. On that basis, a species genepool that doesn't take that extra effort to include deleterious genes is, on the whole, stronger and better suited to survival. Yes, it's possible that an individual with great genetic weaknesses could actually enhance chances of survival of the whole species indirectly (genetically speaking), the risks have to be weighted in the immediate sense of available resources and possible advantages against immediate disadvantages.

 

My Quantum Physics/whales analogy was maybe a little confusing, but put it in another way: Say a wolf is born that can understand calculus, but can't walk. Is the rest of the pack better served risking survival on the chance that calculus will help the rest of them survive, or by letting nature take it's course? My joking answer is yes, because dude, you have a wolf that knows calculus! My serious answer is no, because that's a big bet for the rest of them to take. Again let me point out that this is all just hypothetical and that I DON'T believe think people with disabilities should be exterminated.

 

Thankfully, we are a species that values intelligence, morality, and the benefits that the individual can bring to society, regardless of whether those contributions have a concrete effect on survival.

 

And Falcon, never, because anyone who likes the !@#$%^&*ans can't be president.