GameBanshee Forums

jopperm2 wrote:I have to say I am a strong supporter of alternative fuels. Not for the same reason as you I'm sure. I don't like ecomomic dependance and that is what we have.

You'd be surprised--many people, including myself, who want alternative fuels pushed do it for a series of reasons, and economic liberation from an oil cartel is one of them.

I also see your point about the Jonestown tragedy. Mostly the children aspect of it. What's a president supposed to do in that situation though. Be a little more empathetic, I suppose. Especially a president that relies on image and charisma like he did.

It is not the *appearance* he gave that bothers me. It is that somebody in office, supposedly to represent all Americans, would joke repeatedly about such dreadful human suffering. This isn't a liberal/conservative issue: Barry Goldwater, darling of conservative Republicans in the 1960s, had a great heart. Can as much be said about neo-cons and their fellow travelers, like Reagan and Dubya? Look at the things they've said, the people they've appointed, and the way their actions speak loudest of all.

I think the rest of our differences on Reagan are idealogical in nature and you already know my stance on those issues. Most of them at least. Also, I weight foreign policy higher than domestic policy, another thing we differ on I think.

I don't really divide national from foreign policy as you do, since I believe a conscientious leader appoints good civil servants, all of whom should make good decisions wherever any are required. I do however think that Reagan rated domestic policy much higher than foreign. He was the first president to spend a great amount of time with advisors studying polls, quickly revising his opinions to follow the public, or at least give the appearance of doing so. For myself, I think he was a debacle in the MidEast, a dead loss in Africa, supported elitist minority dictatorships in Central and South America, even argued initially against the overthrow of that corrupt military dictator Suharto in Indonesia. The whole "Reagan overthrew Communism" idea is something of a joke; nobody mooted it about at the time. It's revisionist history, repeatedly endlessly by a small group of people who want people to desparately avoid researching the facts. The true architect of the Soviet collapse was Brezhnev, who let the entire system sink into a quagmire of black market corruption (not to mention, Afghanistan). Contrary to popular belief, Gorbachev didn't try to outspend the US on military hardware. He read the economic numbers, as he's repeatedly said since, and realized at best he might keep the USSR afloat if he set adrift most of the satellite states into a loose confederation--which wasn't likely.

Okay, okay! Reagan's off my top five. You're so good at this, fable. That's why I always come back for more.

re: Jonestown. I didn't mean to paint that as partisan if I did. I agree that joking about athat sort of thing is not cool. Even if you don't give a hoot about it, you should still just say "It's an unfortunate situation," and be done with it.

Reagan probably did rank domestic policy higher as he was pretty socially conservative and was proud of what he accomplished for the neo-con cause. I basically meant that I was more concerned with what I remembered of his foreign policy than things at home.

I primarily do remember his dealings witht the Soviets and not his meddling in the third world. I do agree that he was not responsible for the end of the USSR. I don't think any one person was. I did like his speaches though. I score him high on rhetoric even if the actions don't back it up.

I was also nine when he left office(I think). So perhaps I was more succeptible to smoke and mirrors.

I recall also learning, somehow, that Reagan was supposed to be responsible for helping the collapse of the USSR. I cannot say how, because I am genuinely not sure where I picked up that so-called lesson--I think it was off the History Channel, which is not the most accurate source of history in the world--but I recall at the time being not exactly convinced. Also, there was this special once on the collapse of the USSR (also History Channel, this time I'm sure), and they were talking about how they ceded control over Eastern Germany due to the mistaken comment of one man, and I didn't really buy that, either. Everything involving the collapse of the USSR was a series of events--several events--which preceded the collapse. You can probably find ways to attribute some of that to Reagan or other previous presidents, but the collapse just cannot be wholly attributed to one man (the whole "one person can change history" bit is misleading, since the events swirling around that one person are not even their own doing; the opportunities that they took advantage of, maybe, but those opportunities wouldn't have been available if not for his/her predecessors).

(odd little not-on-topic note but attached to the whole USSR business, I'm in a History of Modern Russia thing right now, and it's a very interesting--although kind of tragic--history, and the collapse of the USSR can actually be more attributed to the attitude of the old leaders of Russia [who worked very hard to not only bring Russia up to par with Western powers but make them superior] and the need to keep Russia--and thus the USSR--up to speed and even superior to countries like the U.S. are more responsible for the USSR's collapse than even Brezhnez; this history class is kind of depressing actually, because I do respect and understand the ideals of socialism/communism, but the downfall of the czars now is a rather nasty black mark on Russia's history to me now [although I suppose it always was, but I didn't really understand that before now]).

Aside from FDR, for best presidents... I guess I'll throw Washington in there. From my U.S. Government class 5 years ago, I was given the impression from the professor that Washington was actually quite an ordinary man (not at all prepared for the kind of public career he took) and was not at all the most eloquent speaker. But his part in the transformation of the renegade colonies into the U.S. really cannot be ignored. Also, as fable has mentioned in the past, Washington willingly gave up the reins, and the ability to give up power (although I'm actually not as 100% into this notion as fable) is quite rare.

Worst presidents... well, I don't think I can answer that well. I used to be someone who would once quickly raise Dubya to that level, but studying his past makes me extremely hesitant now. I actually have bizarre reservations about Lyndon B. Johnson due to his succession to the presidency after the assassination of JFK (who I will admit I had a modicum of respect for, despite what others might say), but I really don't think I could adequately defend making any president at all as being the worst in U.S. history. Each president has had his ups and downs. Like judging them on their personal history, I just don't find it entirely fair to judge them on their worst political mistakes. But Nixon does have that spotlight, if no one else IMO, due to Watergate and the fiasco that engendered (not that I believe he's the only person in history who would indulge in that sort of thing).

Chimaera182 wrote:From my U.S. Government class 5 years ago, I was given the impression from the professor that Washington was actually quite an ordinary man (not at all prepared for the kind of public career he took) and was not at all the most eloquent speaker. But his part in the transformation of the renegade colonies into the U.S. really cannot be ignored. Also, as fable has mentioned in the past, Washington willingly gave up the reins, and the ability to give up power (although I'm actually not as 100% into this notion as fable) is quite rare.

He wasn't that ordinary, if I take your meaning. He was a Virginian aristocrat, very class conscious, and regarded "tradesmen" and others as a lower type of being. (Remember, the restrictions on voting in the US until the 1830s meant that you had to be pretty wealthy, male, and white. And in the 1830s, the wealthy part only was eliminated.) He argued incessantly with the Revolutionary Congress when it forbade giving more than 50 lashes as a punishment to any soldier in his army, short of death. He insisted they were brute animals, and this measure would lead to lax behavior.

Of course, he was considerably more understanding when people in his own station of life indulged in little peccadillos, like making money off contraband, leaving the front to return home and see to business, etc.

That's not to say Washington was an inadequate general, or a poor president. I especially applaud his willingness to turn down a throne, when that was offered him, and then a presidency for life, which amounted to the same thing. With Washington, there was nothing in the middle. Everything was either up or down. His vices were repugnant, and his virtues outstanding, in my opinion.

fable wrote:He wasn't that ordinary, if I take your meaning. He was a Virginian aristocrat, very class conscious, and regarded "tradesmen" and others as a lower type of being. (Remember, the restrictions on voting in the US until the 1830s meant that you had to be pretty wealthy, male, and white. And in the 1830s, the wealthy part only was eliminated.) He argued incessantly with the Revolutionary Congress when it forbade giving more than 50 lashes as a punishment to any soldier in his army, short of death. He insisted they were brute animals, and this measure would lead to lax behavior.

Of course, he was considerably more understanding when people in his own station of life indulged in little peccadillos, like making money off contraband, leaving the front to return home and see to business, etc.

That's not to say Washington was an inadequate general, or a poor president. I especially applaud his willingness to turn down a throne, when that was offered him, and then a presidency for life, which amounted to the same thing. With Washington, there was nothing in the middle. Everything was either up or down. His vices were repugnant, and his virtues outstanding, in my opinion.

I'm sorry. I didn't actually mean to imply that Washington was a poor anything, but the impression I got from my U.S. government class--from that professor especially--was that Wasington was not at all a very good public speaker; my professor said Washington was so bad a public speaker he actually used to shake and stumble over words while speaking to an audience. Other than that, I couldn't even begin to judge him since I very willingly acknowledge my lack of knowledge on his background (I do hope that I always make it clear when I lack knowledge in any debate or issue, but in this one I really must point it out because it is blaringly obvious [also, as I mentioned in another post, I'm kinda drunk, so I'm in an extremely honest phase {although I always try to be regardless}]).

Chimaera182 wrote:I'm sorry. I didn't actually mean to imply that Washington was a poor anything,

I wasn't defending Washington, Chimaera. I was only trying to point out one or two of his notable character flaws, and to show that he wasn't your average guy--as I gathered from your comment about his being "ordinary," though I may have misread you.

but the impression I got from my U.S. government class--from that professor especially--was that Wasington was not at all a very good public speaker; my professor said Washington was so bad a public speaker he actually used to shake and stumble over words while speaking to an audience.

Yes, that's all very true. Washington was a poor writer, and a poor extempore speaker, at his best before a group of his peers. Even then, he found it difficult to unbend. When it came to addressing the troops, whom he regarded as a lower type of humanity, he found it nearly impossible to express himself.

Other than that, I couldn't even begin to judge him since I very willingly acknowledge my lack of knowledge on his background (I do hope that I always make it clear when I lack knowledge in any debate or issue, but in this one I really must point it out because it is blaringly obvious [also, as I mentioned in another post, I'm kinda drunk, so I'm in an extremely honest phase {although I always try to be regardless}]).

Washington had a fondness for expensive Spanish wines, and also for very good rum. To be a member of his personal entourage in the war meant being fed very well, even when the troops were close to starving, but I suspect this wasn't an unusual trait at the time. Books that appeared exposing the horrific conditions British sailors underwent at the time show that class distinctions went very deep, indeed.

Most people of those classes had those types of traits at the time. To not act that way was to be considered rather uncivilized. I don't blame him for some of it. I'm guessing neither of you do either.

It's similar to the age-old argument of whether it was wrong for Jefferson to own slaves. Of course slavery was wrong, but at the time it was an accepted practice. I'm of the opinion that the slave owners that treated their slaves well weren't doing much harm and may have been keeping them out of the hands of more wicked masters.

jopperm2 wrote:Most people of those classes had those types of traits at the time. To not act that way was to be considered rather uncivilized. I don't blame him for some of it. I'm guessing neither of you do either.

It's similar to the age-old argument of whether it was wrong for Jefferson to own slaves. Of course slavery was wrong, but at the time it was an accepted practice. I'm of the opinion that the slave owners that treated their slaves well we're doing much harm and may have been keeping them out of the hands of more wicked masters.

But Washington's atttude was definitely not shared by many other Virginian "aristocrats," such as Jefferson, Madison, or Monroe. Nor did it resemble the attitude of the northeastern group, represented by the likes of John Adams--much less Ben Franklin, whom he personally loathed. The thing about the plantation aristocracy was that it prided itself on having risen out of nothing, and whether true or not, earnestly believed that anybody with the will, a bit of money and a few slaves could prosper and become a power based upon their native intelligence and desire to learn. Washington was something of an aberration in this respect. He lacked this French-based philosophical approach to society, and (despite his membership as a Mason) was much more influenced by British society, which he strongly (and ironically) preferred.

I'll agree to that. Still a first rate president though.

Anyone care to tally the nominations so far? If I have time later I might.

I'm working on a tally right now. I also want to add Thomas Jefferson(my fave), and James Madison to the best list for nominations. There will be more than 10 candidates for best and worst, so can anyone think of a way to narrow them down?

Before I tally the nominees, I want to add Abe Lincoln. Not that he was particularly great, but I think he handled the situation he was given quite well. I also think he took stands where they should have been taken. It never hurts to be assassinated either.

The best United States President was Roosevelt. During the depression he changed America back into something "glorious" from what it once was. While he didn't solve all problems, he did actually help America more than any other President, in my opinion.

Another good one was the President who had the Golden Gate Suspension Bridge (I think that's the name... I'm no good at my American Geography) built did well... he was a good man.

I believe Hoover is in line to be one of the worst President ever, his arrogence about believing the people of the States would sort themselves out in the depression was a stupid move.
Wilson should be on there as well because he signed the Treaty of Versailles and then went back on his word because the American Government wanted to be independant. Both of these Presidents were weak-willed people without initiative to speak of.


And note that this is an outsiders veiw... I'm British.

Outsider views are quite okay. It's quite obvious -- especially these days -- that the US president's actions affect most of the world.

So that's another second for FDR as best, as well as a nomination for Hoover and Wilson for worst.

And the nominees are. . .

We've got more nominees than can go on a survey effectively so they have to be narrowed down.

The system that I have come up with is as follows:
The nominees in both catergories that received more than one nomination will automatically go on to the vote. All others will be offered up for "seconds." Those that are seconded will go to the vote unless the seconding results in more than ten candidates. In that instance we will go with the first ten seconded. A vote will then be held to determine the best and worst U.S. Presidents of all time.

The candidates that have already been seconded are:

For best president. . .
Richard M. Nixon
Harry Truman
George Washington
Franklin D. Roosevelt
Bill Clinton

For worst president. . .
Andrew Jackson
Richard M. Nixon
George W. Bush
Lyndon B. Johnson
Jimmy Carter

The candidates that still need to be seconded are:

For best president. . .
Ronald Reagan
George H.W. Bush
John F. Kennedy
Andrew Johnson
Chester Allen Arthur
Jimmy Carter
Theodore Roosevelt
Dwight D. Eisenhower
Thomas Jefferson
James Madison
Abraham Lincoln

For worst president. . .
James Buchanon
Ulysees S. Grant
Warren G. Harding
Dwight D. Eisenhower
Ronald Reagan
Bill Clinton
Andrew Johnson
Franklin D. Roosevelt
John F. Kennedy
Herbert Hoover
Woodrow Wilson

If you would like to second any of these candidates, please do so NOW!

Getting late to this party I know. Interesting that Nixon ended up on both the best and worst list.

I will add a very hearty second to Ulysses S. Grant for being on the worst list. The graft and corruption during his administration ranks among the worst (if not the worst) I feel. As Fable pointed, he was a good man but poor judge of character.

On my worst five list he would be number 1. So here's my worst five:
1 U.S. Grant
2 Andrew Jackson
3 Warren G. Harding
4 Jimmy Carter
5 Herbert Hoover

I leave G. W. Bush off as he is still in office and has two more years (for better or worse) but think he should be judged after his term for this.

Like wise for a second on Abraham Lincoln in the top five, I offer a hearty second. He came into office as a national crisis was about explode (and did). He maintained and preserved the union. I personally do not feel the United States would be anywhere near as strong today had he not been in office even though he did not live to finish his 2nd term.

Here are my top five:
1 George Washington
2 Abraham Lincoln
3 Franklin D. Roosevelt
4 Harry S. Truman
5 Teddy Roosevelt (haven't seen him mentioned but there are a lot of reasons I feel support nominating him as he did a lot to try and make the US a better place and a strong nation in the international community.)

I'll count that as seconds to all those you mentioned. Teddy Roosevelt was in there too. I nominated him.

It is interesting that Reagan, Nixon, Carter, Eisenhower, Clinton, and FDR are all in both columns; though idealogy likely has a lot to do with that. I will say from a non-partisan standpoint that there are reasons to like and dislike every one of these presidents though.

Just noticed this. Interesting, in that it shows a slow swing in demographics among southern women against Dubya. What was still more interesting was the way at least a few other southern women who had voted straight-line Republican all their lives (as many southerners have, since the 1960s), were selectively breaking rank and viewing Bush with what amounts to contempt--if a comparison to Grant bears that interpretation. And having lived about half my life in the South, I'd have to say it does. Still, this shouldn't be seen as a desertion of one-party rule endorsement. That kind of belief system dies hard. But it does reflect terribly on an administration that has been almost universally endorsed by a monopolized national media, and has had its every comment obediently treated as gospel by the White House press corps for the last 6 years. If you can't live on substance and spin deserts you with part of your core constituency, you've got problems.

It is interesting that Reagan, Nixon, Carter, Eisenhower, Clinton, and FDR are all in both columns; though idealogy likely has a lot to do with that.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Reagan made many people "feel good" about the US, so although the facts show that his administration was a failure in numerous areas, few people focus on the content. Who recalls, for instance, that the effort to pay off the Iranians and free the US hostages by Reagan led to the freedom of some--and the immediate kidnapping of another group of American hostages by the Iranians right after the money exchanged hands?

On the other hand, Carter was probably the most ethical US president of his century, but woefully incapable of working the strings of office to make government do what he wanted. He wouldn't agrree to porkbarreling, the practice of trading favors for substance-free gravy to Congressional members for their constituencies, and he was a failure in pushing through his national policies. Internationally, however, he is frequently remembered with great fondness, and not just as the architect of the one deal between Israelis and Palestinians that actually held, either.

So it makes sense that advocates for one president should rate higher a particular quality often associated with that individual, and/or with their administration.

@jopperm2

Thanks, sorry I missed your nom of T.R. There was a lot of good reading and I just didn't see it.

@fable

Very good points about Carter. I too think he was the most ethical of the past 100 or so years. But I put him on my worst list in spite of that though for the very other reasons you mentioned, not doing well on the administrative side of being president. That said, he and Rosalynn do have my deep admiration for all their work in the past several years, Habitat for Humanity especially. He definitely "Puts his money (and/or time) where his mouth is."

I'm pretty much in agreement with those assessments as well. Reagan was charismatic(he batter be, he was an actor), and had a lot of powerful people behind him. He gave some great -- and highly quotable -- speaches as well. He did have a lot of crooked dealings though, and was the beginnning of the Neo-Con era.

Carter, a great man, was not a very effective president as a whole. He certainly deserves his Nobel, and his humanitarian and social efforts are laudable. He just didn't accomplish much of anything other than the afformentioned Israel/Palestine agreement. That, in my book, is not enough. So.. My assessment is that he was a great man and leader, not a great president. I also find him annoying and can't stand to watch him for five minutes.

There's an interesting article at Salon.com about President Bush by Sidney Blumenthal with the title, "How Bad Is He?" (It's an excerpt from a book.) In additional to cataloging Bush's failures, it also makes the argument that Bush is the most radical President in U.S. history, and arguably the worst. I don't agree with every single point--for example, the way Blumenthal superficially describes Bush's tax cuts for the rich as "redistribution of wealth" when in fact they are the opposite--and I think some of his descriptions of Bush's actions won't make sense to people who haven't followed the stories closely (for example, concerning the Justice Department memos); but nevertheless, it's the best case for calling Bush "the worst President in U.S. history" that I've ever read. It also makes comparisons to other U.S. Presidents that help put things in perspective.