Top 5 Presidents of all time

[Dinsdale]

Jsc, if Dins were here, he'd be expounding on the redundancy of "worthless waste".

No.

Not unless he prefaced it with something like "I'm bettereducated than you, you worthless waste."

[Mikey]

1. Franklin
2. Grant
3. Jackson
4. Hamilton
5. Lincoln
6. Jefferson
7. Washington

OK Franklin was never President. But he should have been...and he's on the $100 bill.
And Hamilton is on the $10. Good enough for me.

By that logic, you should have put ol' Thomas Woodrow Wilson into your #1 slot.

Franklin is the largest bill in circulation.

Try cashing a Wilson at any bank and you'll either get laughed out the door or arrested.

[dingus]

Yeah, probably taking Polk over Jefferson is not a great call and it has more to do with things that Jefferson did that I don't like-his pussy behavior as governor of Virginia when the British invaded during the war. Of course he was not a military man, but most of the military leaders of that war weren't-Jefferson did was Monte Pythonian, "run away, run away," and was almost in denial about the likelihood of a British landing. Toward the end of his term when he launched the trade embargo with Britain and destroyed the American economy which demonstrates to me anyway a fundamental lack of understanding or more of a wishful thinking of the American economy as he would like it to be, i.e. self-sufficient. Louisiana fell into his lap, really, but he did act in the face of the Constitution, blah, blah, which took some nadliness, but the president who didn't make that deal would have gone down in infamy.

War Wagon-long time lurker and occasional participant on other boards. I come here to laugh my ass off at mvscal and Dinsdale and you all and marvel at post totals. I'm not really into the "you suck, no you suck more," nature of much of what passes for discussion, but a good topic like this one or Arabs acting like the filthy pigs that they are gets me fired up.

[smackaholic]

Never have understood the fascination with Reagan. His administration began the pussyishness that has emboldened our enemies. His decision to pull the Marines out of Lebanon after the devastating bombing of their barracks was the first sign that we would bail if hit hard. No less than Osama bin laden has said that that was when he realized we had no backbone and would fold if attacked. Reagan's giving in to Casper Weinberger's whining made us look pitiful.

That added to his senile, addled state toward the end of his presidency and his horribly failed economic policies should relegate RR to midpack at best.


Washington
Jefferson
Teddy Roosevelt
Lincoln
Clinton

You bag ronnie for bailing in lebanon (a valid point, btw), then you include clinton on your most bestest list?

How 'bout just a little consistency, Sam.

Clinton ran us out of somalia, after a number of our troops were killed as a direct result of his bumbling. Those rangers being stuck there because there wasn't a bit of armor in town was gross negligence and a far better reason to impeach than lying about bagging a fat skank.

Then he pussy footed around with saddam, passed on a chance to whack OBL and did jack shit about multiple strikes abroad and right here (first WTC attack).

Just what does Clinton make the list for? Balancing the budget? The rep congress and dotcom cap gain windfall have as much to do with that.

As for RR setting a policy of cutting and running, it was already firmly in place from vietnam.

[smackaholic]

Washington -- a truly dreadful military leader who lost every single battle except one.

ltsturdtoo -- a truly dreadful bb poster.

Did george lose battles?

Surely.

He headed a rag tag bunch against the 18th century superpower britain.

And he got over.

'bode george.

Then, he turned down the opportunity to be king for life.

Imagine any of today's POS political whores getting that offer.

[poptart]

Top 5.2
5. Illuminati
4. Bilderburgers w/cheese
3. Bohemian Rhapsody China Groves
2. Masonic Lincoln Logs up the @cehole
1. Dead Kennedys


.2 Marilyn Monroe

[Tom In VA]

Thanks BSmack, that's why I made the edit. I had contemplated posting something similiar the night before and McKinley stuck out in my mind as having a nice bill with his pic on it.



FDR ? There's some questions looming about him.

Wilson ? Same with him.

Was Washington REALLY that great a president ? I mean nobody listened to him or heeded his warnings.



Sam,

I liked Clinton. I disagreed with some of his decisions but I liked him, when he was President and shortly afterwards. I despise him now.

[BSmack]

Franklin is the largest bill in circulation. Try cashing a Wilson at any bank and you'll either get laughed out the door or arrested.

Jesus Christ Mikey. Lighten up will ya?

Besides, Franklin is still Salmon Chase's bitch.

[smackaholic]

To be perfectly honest, I added Clinton to generate discussion. Didn't see his name on any list. Yes, his "leadership" cost us dearly in Somalia. If the proper armor had been there, the disastrous events wouldn't have gone down as they did in chasing Adid.

In his defense, we did go through an incredibly prosperous period during Clit-on's presidency. Whether that was a product of his administration, congress, or dumb luck, who knows?

We went through fake prosperity (dotbomb fiasco), just as the shrub had his fake prosperity fueled by non fake home value.

Actually, there has been some real prosperity through this period which is a result of productivity gains from the PC age. A byproduct of this huge increase in white collar productivity should have been a large reduction in gubmint size, seeing as a large number of them are just paper pushing hacks. Unfortunately, they are unionized paper pushing hacks with lots of political clout, so they have continued to grow.

We really should be in a very prosperous age due to technology, but, as long as we have a tax rate that sucks the life out of the economy and political whores that mortgage the future for short term expediency, that will not be the case.

[Tom In VA]

I'm not sold on the fact we were reluctantly dragged into WWII. It's good that FDR was a great leader throughout the war because in my opinion, he led us into it.

I don't think he could have pulled that off today, of course that is neither here nor there. But a President - today - any President for that matter wouldn't not be able to get away with the draconion measures FDR used to "lead" us during the war.

So I'm not sure if it was his leadership skill that pulled us through or the tools available to him. I think something could be said for the decisiveness and will to use those tools as being ballsy leadership.

[LTS TRN 2]

FDR ? There's some questions looming about him.

True, but his leadership through WW2 far outweighs them all. We weren't even a 3rd rate military power in 1939. Five and half years later we had 16 million lavishly equipped and reasonably well trained men kicking ass in every corner of planet earth.

It was one of the most incredible feats of administration and logistics in American history. FDR had the right men in the right places to get it done pretty much from day one.

An absolute crock of shit, as usual. In fact our forces were terribly unprepared for WWII, as reflected in the horrific casualties--basically like wheat being mowed during harvest. We won by carpet bombing huge civilian areas--and finally nuking non-military cities. Okay, we won. But that's it. NOT ONE MORE "Victory" BY THE U.S. MILITARY MACHINE.

Dispute this? So...which war have we won since? Korea? Vietnam? Oh that's right, we conquered the Dominican Republic, and Nicaragua.

In fact, FDR's rendering of the U.S. into the Military Industrial Congressional Complex was the beginning of the end.

Dispute this? Take a good look around.

[Van]

Nick, by my math 1939 plus five and a half years later means late 1944-ish, or 1945. Mvscal already said that we "weren't even a 3rd rate military power" at the onset of the war. I read that as agreement with your point that we were terribly unprepared for WWII.

He said the military accomplished an enormous transformation in a very short period of time.

[LTS TRN 2]

Well sure, but transformed into what? The alpha military state in the world? Okay..but MY point is that this led absolutely nowhere but into repeated disaster--and currently total catastrophe. Dispute this? So...where have we won anything since we nuked Nagasaki?

[BSmack]

An absolute crock of shit, as usual. In fact our forces were terribly unprepared for WWII, as reflected in the horrific casualties--basically like wheat being mowed during harvest. We won by carpet bombing huge civilian areas--and finally nuking non-military cities. Okay, we won. But that's it. NOT ONE MORE "Victory" BY THE U.S. MILITARY MACHINE.

We did not "win by carpet bombing huge civilian areas". Period. Large scale bombing of civilian areas actually served to stiffen enemy resolve and to free up workers in non-essential businesses for work in war industries. We won in spite of wasting resources on large scale strategic bombing

We won WWII because we were able to arm not only ourselves, but the British and Soviets as well, allowing for a complete encirclement of Nazi Germany. We won WWII because when the Germans and the Japanese lost ships, they were unable to replace them, whereas we replaced our lost ships with relative ease. We won in spite of our initial inferiority in tank and plane quality to the Germans simply because we were able to out produce the Germans. We won because our intelligence services ran circles around the Germans and Japanese. And lastly, we won because the American fighting man from Ike on down were given the latitude to adapt to the enemy and the terrain in ways the Germans and Japanese with their far more rigid command structures were never allowed.

Christ man, your knowledge of American history is utterly laughable.

[LTS TRN 2]

Yer partly right, B-smack, concerning America's resources, etc. But don't kid yourself, Germany lost because its insane leader was too stupid to cede military command to actual generals with expertise. America, you'll recall was helping the Nazi regime as much as it possibly could all through the 1930's (and Prescott Bush right up until 1942). And as for Japan, yes we paid a horrible price in taking a bunch of tiny islands--and finally nuked the non-military cities after fire bombing the millions of civilians, as mentioned. My point is that this marked the beginning of sixty years of waste, pollution, and post-colonial oppression in the name of "Democracy" or "Freedom" and other such cliches. And moreover, we haven't won jack shit since. Okay?

[Van]

Shit, we didn't even win WWII, not in Europe anyway. The Soviets won that war and we were just along for the ride. They did the real heavy lifting...by a wide margin.

Our real war was in the Pacific, and that was an inevitable win once our industrial might came into play.

Nick, what war have we won since WWII?

The Cold War, for one. Our fatter military checkbook won that war. Winning a war without firing a shot is pretty much most people's idea of how best to win a war.

More importantly, we haven't lost any real wars even as we became the preeminent superpower of planet earth, something that simply wasn't the case prior to the establishment of the U.S. military as the most comprehensive and far reaching strategic weapon in the history of nations.

[Mikey]

Shit, we didn't even win WWII, not in Europe anyway. The Soviets won that war and we were just along for the ride. They did the real heavy lifting...by a wide margin.

What movies are you watchihng?

[LTS TRN 2]

Wrong! We LOST Vietnam, period. And in doing so we murdered upwards of a million Vietnamese and 300,000 or so Cambodians, and lost 58,000 Americans plus hundreds of thousands of lives ruined by injuries and trauma.

As for the Cold War, this was entirely phony. There never was a threat, and all we did was waste incalculable amounts of money amassing a doomsday industry of thousands of nukes--as well as falling far behind the necessary learning curve of appropriate environmental consciousness for planetary survival. It's amazing how shallow your take really is. :wink:

[BSmack]

Shit, we didn't even win WWII, not in Europe anyway. The Soviets won that war and we were just along for the ride. They did the real heavy lifting...by a wide margin.

What movies are you watchihng?

Probably that one with Jude Law.

[RadioFan]

There never was a threat

Sin,

The Suez canel
The Berlin Wall
Cuban missile crisis
Hot wars by proxy for 50 years

Not to mention about 20,000 nuclear weapons targeted on the U.S. and Europe.

Nah, no threat whatsoever. That was all just made-up and stuff by the neo-Zionist historians.

[LTS TRN 2]

R-fan, what's this spray of Rovian blather? The Suez Canal? This was an Egyptian reaction to the U.S. support of the ZioNazi entity. The Berlin Wall was predicated on the divvying up of Europe, which was FDR's plan, remember? As for the Cuban "crisis," you've got to be kidding. We had tried a CIA invasion (Bay of Pigs) and had been actively trying to murder Castro. So what if missiles had been placed on Cuba? What difference would it have made? Were we going to be able to intercept missiles if they were further away? Obviously the Cold War itself had created nothing but useless expenditures as well as the Military Industrial Complex itself--a complete disaster.

[Left Seater]

as for Japan, yes we paid a horrible price in taking a bunch of tiny islands--and finally nuked the non-military cities after fire bombing the millions of civilians

Calling Hiroshima a non-military city is either a sign of zero inteligence or of someone attempting to influence opinion to some perverted version.

First off, Hiroshima was a by nature a huge naval facitilty. The Ota river split into many channels as it entered Hiroshima naturally creating a huge waterfront area. This natural fanning created huge port space of which the navy put to good use. This port was the home of the few remaining Jap subs. That alone made it a military target.

Not to worry though there was much more.

Matsuo Yasuzawa the famed instructor of Kamikazi pilots was often in Hiroshima reporting to superiors. Some flight training was also undertaken in Hiroshima. Yet another reason this is a valid military target.

The Second General Army had Headquarters in Hiroshima. Field Marshal Hata was prepared to direct the defense of the mainland and islands from Hiroshima. You say we paid a high price for taking smaller islands and I agree. I think the price would have been huge for an invasion of the main islands and any attempts at eliminating the high command of those defending the mainland is of course a valid military target.

So what is your deal? Why call Hiroshima a non-military target? Why try to mislead us when the facts so clearly say otherwise?

[Van]

Mvscal, I didn't say we were only spectating. I said the Soviets did the heavy lifting and we were mostly just along for the ride.

The Western Theater battles we were in were all mere triflings compared to the real battles which turned that war, all of which occured in the Eastern Theater.

Those battles dwarfed anything that happened in the West. They also divided Hitler's forces, occupying a large percentage of his military. Had Hitler not marched east he would've been able to lock up western Europe, at least until Stalin went ahead and inevitably marched west anyway.

Not that any of this is news to you. I know you know this better than I do. Unfortunately however most people in America have little idea as to what really happened in that war. Our media and our schooling have long taught us that the U.S. saved the world from Nazi Germany. They make only scant mention of the hell on earth that was the real fight in Europe, where the scale of battle and the casualties involved made all the western battles look like small training skirmishes.

[Van]

Hell, the kindest, gentlest and most life and face saving thing we ever did for Japan was to nuke 'em. The alternative would've been unthinkable to them, both to their culture and in terms of the physical devastation which would've occured to their land and their people.

Not to mention our own people.

Bitching about the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is like bitching about zapping melanoma.

[Left Seater]

Van,

Couple of things need to be pointed out though. Yes, Russia did much "heavy lifting" in Europe, but what we did was nothing to be swept under the rug. The war in Europe was on Russia's front porch and as such they should have been the biggest player.

Further we were fighting Japan in the Pacific at the same time. Russia wasn't beating back the Japs in the Pacific even though this was on their back porch.

We did more than our share in Europe. Just sayin'.

[titlover]

Well sure, but transformed into what? The alpha military state in the world? Okay..but MY point is that this led absolutely nowhere but into repeated disaster--and currently total catastrophe. Dispute this? So...where have we won anything since we nuked Nagasaki?

obviously we learned that our forces weren't trained for jungle guerilla warfare like in Korea and Vietnam.

[titlover]

Wrong! We LOST Vietnam, period. And in doing so we murdered upwards of a million Vietnamese and 300,000 or so Cambodians, and lost 58,000 Americans plus hundreds of thousands of lives ruined by injuries and trauma.

As for the Cold War, this was entirely phony. There never was a threat, and all we did was waste incalculable amounts of money amassing a doomsday industry of thousands of nukes--as well as falling far behind the necessary learning curve of appropriate environmental consciousness for planetary survival. It's amazing how shallow your take really is. :wink:

we weren't allowed to win that war.

[Van]

Lefty, I'm not disagreeing that we did our fair share, or more than our fair share. I'm simply saying that in this country there's a large misconception as to our real role in the war n Europe. The Brits have long maintained this about the U.S. and the Soviets/Russians have every reason to just laugh and roll their eyes when they see how we tend to represent our role (and theirs) in the fight against Nazi Germany.

Our main war took place in the Pacific. That's where we encountered our greatest casualties and that's where we did our heaviest lifting. That's where we were our opponents' main enemy.

In Europe we were strictly the undercard. The main event was Hitler vs Stalin. Our role in Europe was to be part of the reason Hitler stupidly split his forces. In terms of prioritizing though the Soviets occupied far more of Hitler's focus than we ever did. Our losses in Germany were miniscule compared to the losses Germany and the Soviets suffered fighting each other. The ground gained and lost in the East drawfed what happened in the West; especially the ground regained by the U.S. following Normandy.

The Soviets were the first to Berlin and they traveled the greatest distance to get there. They also fought three or four of the single largest battles in the history of mankind to get there. They took the brunt of Hitler's military might. Once the Eastern Theater was in full swing the West only faced what amounted to Hitler's occupation forces.

The interesting debate, to me anyway, is how that war would've turned out had Hitler not attacked Stalin.

He certainly wraps up and locks down western Europe, including Great Britian. He also ends up fighting Stalin anyway, as most historians feel Stalin was amassing troops on Hitler's borders for an eventual invasion.

Gotta like Germany's chances though a whole lot more as the home team, with no dual fronts to worry about. No long supply lines across a Russian winter, no long sieges, no splitting of both his manpower and his generals' brain power...making the Soviets have to stretch themselves out against a dug in German army.

Big difference, methinks. That was one huge egotistical blunder for Germany, striking east when they did. People will debate this until the end of time but it sure seems like that war was there to be won for Germany, had they fought with their brains instead of their egos.

[BSmack]

Yer partly right, B-smack, concerning America's resources, etc. But don't kid yourself, Germany lost because its insane leader was too stupid to cede military command to actual generals with expertise.

I believe that I mentioned the operational latitude given to allied forces relative to the fascist forces as one of the reasons for ultimate allied victory. Do you even bother to read before replying?

America, you'll recall was helping the Nazi regime as much as it possibly could all through the 1930's (and Prescott Bush right up until 1942).

While there were Americans initially sympathetic to the Nazi regime (ex: Ford, Lindbergh), at no point in time was it American policy to help the Nazis "as much as we possibly could". Lend-Lease out front should have told you that.

And as for Japan, yes we paid a horrible price in taking a bunch of tiny islands--and finally nuked the non-military cities after fire bombing the millions of civilians, as mentioned. My point is that this marked the beginning of sixty years of waste, pollution, and post-colonial oppression in the name of "Democracy" or "Freedom" and other such cliches. And moreover, we haven't won jack shit since. Okay?

Wow. Just wow.

So this is how you lie, spin and back yourself out of your previously posted idiocy? By flailing blindly in the direction of another subject? You're a moronic simpleton. Just kill yourself and get it over with.

[Left Seater]

Van,

Next to impossible to read intent or tone from a message board and just wanted to make sure of your position. Our troops deserve every bit of thanks from Europe that they can get.

The interesting debate, to me anyway, is how that war would've turned out had Hitler not attacked Stalin.

He certainly wraps up and locks down western Europe, including Great Britian. He also ends up fighting Stalin anyway, as most historians feel Stalin was amassing troops on Hitler's borders for an eventual invasion.

Gotta like Germany's chances though a whole lot more as the home team, with no dual fronts to worry about. No long supply lines across a Russian winter, no long sieges, no splitting of both his manpower and his generals' brain power...making the Soviets have to stretch themselves out against a dug in German army.

Big difference, methinks. That was one huge egotistical blunder for Germany, striking east when they did. People will debate this until the end of time but it sure seems like that war was there to be won for Germany, had they fought with their brains instead of their egos.

You answer that for me with your last thought. I don't think Germany was capable of fighting with their brains. As long as the crazy one was leading that country there was nothing but ego involved. Someone else thinking with their brain doesn't seek to dominate the continent or wipe out a race of people.

[Van]

Stalin did even worse and he managed just fine.

[BSmack]

Stalin did even worse and he managed just fine.

Stalin stayed within himself. Hitler didn't. Stalin was a sociopath. Hitler was a lunatic.

[Moving Sale]

The Western Theater battles we were in were all mere triflings compared to the real battles which turned that war, all of which occured in the Eastern Theater.
The alternative would've been unthinkable to them, both to their culture and in terms of the physical devastation which would've occured to their land and their people.

The inflected form of occur is occurred.

The ground gained and lost in the East drawfed what happened in the West; especially the ground regained by the U.S. following Normandy.

What?

[BSmack]

The ground gained and lost in the East drawfed what happened in the West; especially the ground regained by the U.S. following Normandy.

What?

I wasn't sure about that either. The United States had forces in action in places as diverse as North Africa, Dutch Harbor, Guadalcanal and France. Also, it was our navy that pwned the Japanese fleet. And let us not forget the US munitions and supplies that kept the Red Army from being overrun in the first place. Van is being very selective about how he's looking at this.

[Van]

The distance the U.S. traveled from Normandy to Berlin was nowhere near as great as the distance the Soviets traveled to capture Berlin.

Also, the road traveled by the U.S. to get there wasn't nearly as difficult as the path the Soviets had to travel.

[Van]

The ground gained and lost in the East drawfed what happened in the West; especially the ground regained by the U.S. following Normandy.

What?

I wasn't sure about that either. The United States had forces in action in places as diverse as North Africa, Dutch Harbor, Guadalcanal and France. Also, it was our navy that pwned the Japanese fleet. And let us not forget the US munitions and supplies that kept the Red Army from being overrun in the first place. Van is being very selective about how he's looking at this.

I've been very clear about how I'm loooking at this. I'm only talking about the European Theater.

The Pacific Theater was where we fought the majority of our war. The Soviets, not the U.S. or even Great Britian, were Hitler's main enemy. Hitler didn't concern himself with the war in the Pacific.

[Mikey]

The distance the U.S. traveled from Normandy to Berlin was nowhere near as great as the distance the Soviets traveled to capture Berlin.

I think you're forgetting that the U.S. didn't start in Normandy. Admittedly we didn't have to fight our way across the Atlantic Ocean but it did present some logistical challenges to say the least..

[Mikey]

The Pacific Theater was where we fought the majority of our war. The Soviets, not the U.S. or even Great Britian, were Hitler's main enemy. Hitler didn't concern himself with the war in the Pacific.

Really Van. You're a fucking idiot if you think that the two European fronts were separate wars.

[Tom In VA]

We had people in Italy, Iraq too (true) , we had folks all over the place during WWII.

I think Van is off the mark. Mvscal, BSmack, and LTS TRN was right in saying Hitler himself did quite a bit to cause his own downfall.

British Intelligence was a factor that helped not only the U.S. and British, but it also helped the Soviets. 24 hour bombing, etc.. etc..

That, and Patton would have beaten the Ruskies to Berlin had he been allowed to do so. (Humming the theme song to Patton) :D


Van it was a TEAM effort, get over it.

[Van]

Mvscal, those battles in Africa and Normandy were not merely Germany vs the U.S. They were Germany vs the U.S., Great Britain, Canada, Australia, etc.

The battles in the East were Germany (and Austria) vs the Soviets. The casualties involved on either side in any one of the biggest of those battles eclipses all U.S. casualties in all of Europe combined.

The point is that Stalin defeated Hitler, much more than we did.

Again, nothing you don't already know. I'm reasonably sure you're one of the few people here who are really aware of the scale of battle that took place in the main Eastern Theater battles. Many of the largest battles that took place in the East are completely unknown to most Americans.

Even Normandy was a fairly trifling battle, by comparison. Yes, Hitler rotated troops between fronts but look at the sheer numbers. Look where he had his numbers concentrated.

Once the war with the Soviets began the Western Front became decidedly secondary to Hitler's focus. Were it not for Hitler's focus on the Soviets then Normandy doesn't even happen; or, if it does, it occurs much later, in a very different world.