Best U.S. President

[CCGirl]

Every nation on planet earth is built on stolen land.

But not all nations used genocide.

 

[GigageiTsula]

But not all nations used genocide.

That is exactly correct.

 

[platzapS]

The best all time without a shadow of a doubt, an no arguments being able to stand against: George Washington!!!

He annihilates all competition!!! There is no competition, there is only George Washington the 1st president of the United States.

He was, is, and will be the greatest president of the United States of America as long as this country exists.

FIN.

I don't believe I've ever agreed with you, ShieldofFaith. But this time I do. He was a hero in leading the military struggle to create our country, and a hero in stepping down after two terms. I've read he was horrified at the prospect of dying in his second term, which would have set a precedent for a lifetime presidency. He clearly was concerned about his people, his country, and the spirit of liberty.

In the modern era, I like Eisenhower. He was a war hero but an advocate for peace and critic of the military-industrial complex of war profiteers. He commissioned the national highway system that improved our security and tremendously boosted our economy. Although unduly cautious about civil rights, he did not oppose the nascent movement for racial equality. Sure, he had flaws, but overall he was a great guy.

 

[Steezie]

Every nation on planet earth is built on stolen land.

"Because everybody else does it" is not a valid exscuse

I'd have to go with JFK. One BIG reason was the Cuban Missile Crisis which could have led to nuclear war with Russia and the end of basically civilization as we know it.

 

[Sphere]

Im not excusing it, just pointing out reality.

 

[MorkandMindy]

Knowing American Indian history as I do, I would have to say none...

That rules out nearly all pre 1900 Presidents, also breaking away from Britain narrowly avoided the abolition of slavery imposed by Britain on all colonies, so Lincoln cancelled out Washington.

Washington's great achievement was to bring freedom. Without him the future of the US would have been like Australia or Canada; devoid of the freedom we fought for.

 

[Steezie]

That rules out nearly all pre 1900 Presidents, also breaking away from Britain narrowly avoided the abolition of slavery imposed by Britain on all colonies, so Lincoln cancelled out Washington.

Washington's great achievement was to bring freedom. Without him the future of the US would have been like Australia or Canada; devoid of the freedom we fought for.

Why is Australia and Canada so horrible?

 

[gwenmead]

I don't know. I don't think I can pick just one. There have been a few outstanding presidents. None of them were perfect though. And what do you do with presidents who did really well in one area, but blew it in another?

That said, I've got a couple of favorites. FDR is up there for his role in getting the US through the Depression and WWII. Some of the earliest presidents are on my list, simply out of sheer admiration at their willingness to lead a brand-new (and rather experimental) nation. Theodore Roosevelt has a certain appeal as well, for his conservationism.

However, none of the people we rank as among the best were perfect, and I don't believe in romanticizing their accomplishments. Just considering how they handled the job of guiding the US while they had it.

 

[MorkandMindy]

...breaking away from Britain narrowly avoided the abolition of slavery imposed by Britain on all colonies, so Lincoln cancelled out Washington.

Washington's great achievement was to bring freedom. Without him the future of the US would have been like Australia or Canada; devoid of the freedom we fought for.

Why is Australia and Canada so horrible?

They aren't. Australia and Canada have the same freedoms without a Revolt against Britain and without George Washington.

I lived in the US through 7th grade and heard all the stuff about how we had to fight for our freedom, fight these, fight those, and how we pioneered it all and it spread World-wide from the sacrifices of our soldiers and have to be ready to do it again as required.


Rights: The Bill of Rights came into force in England on 13 Feb 1689.

It forbade: the sovereign from interfering in process of law, taxation without representation, from cruel and unusual punishments and excessive bail, from fines and forfeitures without trial,

It gave: right (for Protestants) to bear arms for defence.

Slavery was abolished in England around 1100, and it became law that any slave who stepped on British soil became free (contrast Dread Scott). When a slave, unloading a ship, stepped onto the quay, he was freed, and became a distinguished citizen in Bristol.

 

[Steezie]

They aren't. Australia and Canada have the same freedoms without a Revolt against Britain and without George Washington.

I lived in the US through 7th grade and heard all the stuff about how we had to fight for our freedom, fight these, fight those, and how we pioneered it all and it spread World-wide from the sacrifices of our soldiers and have to be ready to do it again as required.


Rights: The Bill of Rights came into force in England on 13 Feb 1689.

It forbade: the sovereign from interfering in process of law, taxation without representation, from cruel and unusual punishments and excessive bail, from fines and forfeitures without trial,

It gave: right (for Protestants) to bear arms for defence.

Slavery was abolished in England around 1100, and it became law that any slave who stepped on British soil became free (contrast Dread Scott). When a slave, unloading a ship, stepped onto the quay, he was freed, and became a distinguished citizen in Bristol.

So the US has an idealistic outlook on it's own revolution, Im sure the British dont exactly dwell on India, Africa, and the Age of Piracy in history class.

 

[MorkandMindy]

So the US has an idealistic outlook on it's own revolution, Im sure the British dont exactly dwell on India, Africa, and the Age of Piracy in history class.

Actually Steezie, we do. India was taken by the East India Company and after it went bankrupt this nation ended up with it, and yes, many in India suffered. There was a grab for resources in Africa and the well being of Africans was not top priority, that is also very true.

We don't celebrate inhumane acts of the past unlike the US where Thanksgiving complete with Quakers and Indians is celebrated as a good thing. Quakers were actually banned from Boston and some were hung in Boston Common on Church day with the church in attendance - and the Native Americans fared far worse than most people from colonies did from the British.

Jimmy Carter (for the rest of the world)

For the US as well.

Key national policy is energy. Run out of oil all of a sudden and you don't have a country. No food transport, no harvesters, no heating, no personal transport, no companies, no jobs, no incomes.

Again here Australia and Canada are doing better than the US. Australia has a huge amount of coal and a low population, Canada exports power to the US and has more than enough for it's population.

The US is running a huge financial deficit and has virtually no oil reserves.

Jimmy Carter legislated at the right time to cut car fuel consumption, back when the US still had 50% of it's oil, and proposed changing over to coal for electric generation, anything to make the oil last longer. He put on a sweater and turned down the heating (mine is at 61F).

Instead the public voted in feel-good Reagan with 'eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die'. Then we built up a huge military to make sure we could get the oil from other countries. We talk about 'the World's oil supply' confident that we can get it wherever it is.

We don't have the money so it's pretty obvious there's going to be some force needed and some promissory notes that may never be redeemed. Then some people even say the World is fighting us, and there is a list of 60 countries we have to deal with.

In my lifetime the best President was Jimmy Carter.

 

[MorkandMindy]

I don't want to go off to work after writing such a pessimistic piece.

Wasting energy has got us nowhere. On average US citizens are more overweight than ever and more school children are on strong (prescription) drugs than ever. Lack of exercise play a role in both, and young US children are way behind other nations in mental growth due to travelling around in cars isolated from the World. This over medicalized car nation is in a bad way.

If we cut consumption so we don't waste it all in 5 years there is real hope:

1. There may be a lot of oil in Southern Columbia, if there is enough we will find a way to get it even if we have to make Columbia the 51st state.

2. In Colorado mainly, there is a huge amount of oil shale.

3. The US has the World's largest coal deposits.

4. The US has Uranium and Canada has lots too. We may strike a deal over CANDU and Uranium.

Combine the realism of Carter with the optimism and feel good factor of Reagan.

 

[wildthing]

I like the dead guys in my wallet. Lincoln, Washington, Grant and Hamlaton.

 

[Imperiuz]

George W Bush: He made it possible!

 

[Steezie]

George W Bush: He made it possible!

For what? Complete loss of faith in the political system? I assure that was there before

 

[MorkandMindy]

So the US has an idealistic outlook on it's own revolution, ...

My point is the US has an unrealistic view of it's own rebellion against Britain. And the unrealistic part is to say it was necessary, courageous, wonderful in every way, and made the US into the World leader in promoting freedom, democracy and the American way, and we should always be ready to fight for what is right.

They ignore the obvious counter examples that Canada and Australia did not rebel and have at least as much freedom, and fewer nutcases. And that 'fighting for our freedoms' has always meant going to other countries and killing them.

I remember how important it was not to lose in Vietnam, we were killin and occasionally being killed for truth, justice and the American way, yet after the parts of the South that were under the control of Saigon fell to Ho, a few decades on, they seem to me much the same as if the war had never happened

 

[Steezie]

Sorry I didn't respond to the earlier post, I didn't see it

My point is the US has an unrealistic view of it's own rebellion against Britain. And the unrealistic part is to say it was necessary, courageous, wonderful in every way, and made the US into the World leader in promoting freedom, democracy and the American way, and we should always be ready to fight for what is right.

Again, Im not disagreeing that the US tends to OD on patriotism.

I have a somewhat dim view on British foreign policy from any period. I'm Irish and an IRA supporter.

They ignore the obvious counter examples that Canada and Australia did not rebel and have at least as much freedom, and fewer nutcases. And that 'fighting for our freedoms' has always meant going to other countries and killing them.

I dont know about fewer nutcases, I think the US' just get more airtime.

I remember how important it was not to lose in Vietnam, we were killin and occasionally being killed for truth, justice and the American way, yet after the parts of the South that were under the control of Saigon fell to Ho, a few decades on, they seem to me much the same as if the war had never happened

True. The US doesnt do a good job picking its fights.

If you're looking for someone to defend the US, you came to the wrong person. The only reason Im not an expatriate is because my fiancee wants to stay in the 'states.

 

[Lupinus]

Washington, but then most of the early guys were good. Lincoln was horrible and stripped the states of their individual right cementing centralized federal power, which is a far cry from what this country was founded on.

Also, just about anyone who really wanted the job, was horrible. I'm tired of carrer politcians, for once I'd jsut liek a statesmen to step up to the plate.

 

[Wren]

I'm not sure. I'd say either Lincoln or FDR. I'm leaning more towards Lincoln though.

 

[MorkandMindy]

Washington, but then most of the early guys were good. Lincoln was horrible and stripped the states of their individual right cementing centralized federal power, which is a far cry from what this country was founded on.

Also, just about anyone who really wanted the job, was horrible. I'm tired of carrer politcians, for once I'd jsut liek a statesmen to step up to the plate.

Interesting point, rather than buying and lying their way to the top as in the US,

delegates to the ancient Greek Assembly were chosen at random from the populace, and the leader of the Assembly also chosen at random.

They didn't do badly and one ne'er do well chosen by lot was Socrates who proved to be absolutely superb.

The idea that the media will give a fair account of which politician is a good one and which is a bad one is pretty optimistic

In the US the unexpected candidate Jimmy Carter proved to be a better President than any since have been. The Bush-controlled media slanged him off through his entire 4 years so that most Americans are unhappy with him though most are unclear why they are, or why they preferred Reagan / Bush.

Modern propaganda recognises the crucial role of the emotions.