Total Posts:20|Showing Posts:1-20
Jump to topic:

Who was the best President?

comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2010 8:39:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
In your opinion, who was the best?
Why?

Who was the worst?
Why?

Feel free to debate and challenge each others picks.

Like I like Washington.
He was smart, courageous, invited a common sense central government, gave us the true model of what a president should be, could handle power and was just a great political mind.

I disliked... FDR, I think we could have gone with less social programs, was in office to long.
Nixon. But not the worst. I learned a great lesson from Nixon.
George Bush, not the worse, would also be among the ones I think were the worst.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2010 8:44:32 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/3/2010 8:39:08 PM, comoncents wrote:
Like I like Washington.
He was smart, courageous, invited a common sense central government, gave us the true model of what a president should be, could handle power and was just a great political mind.

"In June of 1775, George Washington was appointed Major General and elected by Congress to be commander in chief of the American revolutionary forces. Although he took up his tasks energetically, Washington accomplished nothing militarily for the remainder of the year and more, nor did he try. His only campaign in 1775 was internal rather than external; it was directed against the American army as he found it, and was designed to extirpate the spirit of liberty pervading this unusually individualistic and democratic army of militiamen. In short, Washington set out to transform a people's army, uniquely suited for a libertarian revolution, into another orthodox and despotically ruled statist force after the familiar European model." - Murray Rothbard[1]

"His [Washington's] primary aim was to crush the individualistic and democratic spirit of the American forces. For one thing, the officers of the militia were elected by their own men, and the discipline of repeated elections kept the officers from forming an aristocratic ruling caste typical of European armies of the period. The officers often drew little more pay than their men, and there were no hierarchical distinctions of rank imposed between officers and men. As a consequence, officers could not enforce their wills coercively on the soldiery. This New England equality horrified Washington's conservative and highly aristocratic soul." - Murray Rothbard[1]

"In addition to imposing a web of hierarchy on the Continental Army, Washington crushed liberty within by replacing individual responsibility by iron despotism and coercion. Severe and brutal punishments were imposed upon those soldiers whose sense of altruism failed to override their instinct for self-preservation. Furloughs were curtailed and girlfriends of soldiers were expelled from camp; above all, lengthy floggings were introduced for all practices that Washington considered esthetically or morally offensive. He even had the temerity to urge Congress to raise the maximum number of strikes of the lash from 39 to the enormous number of 500; fortunately, Congress refused." - Murray Rothbard[1]

"As might have been expected, the wealthy and aristocratic Washington, free from money worries, had little understanding of the economic plight of his soldiery. In contrast to the legends about his compassion, Washington railed about the defecting troops as being possessed of a "dirty mercenary spirit" and of "basely deserting the cause of their country." - Murray Rothbard[1]

And he goes on.

[1] http://mises.org...
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2010 8:54:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/3/2010 8:44:32 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 3/3/2010 8:39:08 PM, comoncents wrote:
Like I like Washington.
He was smart, courageous, invited a common sense central government, gave us the true model of what a president should be, could handle power and was just a great political mind.

"In June of 1775, George Washington was appointed Major General and elected by Congress to be commander in chief of the American revolutionary forces. Although he took up his tasks energetically, Washington accomplished nothing militarily for the remainder of the year and more, nor did he try. His only campaign in 1775 was internal rather than external; it was directed against the American army as he found it, and was designed to extirpate the spirit of liberty pervading this unusually individualistic and democratic army of militiamen. In short, Washington set out to transform a people's army, uniquely suited for a libertarian revolution, into another orthodox and despotically ruled statist force after the familiar European model." - Murray Rothbard[1]


False.

"His [Washington's] primary aim was to crush the individualistic and democratic spirit of the American forces. For one thing, the officers of the militia were elected by their own men, and the discipline of repeated elections kept the officers from forming an aristocratic ruling caste typical of European armies of the period. The officers often drew little more pay than their men, and there were no hierarchical distinctions of rank imposed between officers and men. As a consequence, officers could not enforce their wills coercively on the soldiery. This New England equality horrified Washington's conservative and highly aristocratic soul." - Murray Rothbard[1]


Some of it false.

"In addition to imposing a web of hierarchy on the Continental Army, Washington crushed liberty within by replacing individual responsibility by iron despotism and coercion. Severe and brutal punishments were imposed upon those soldiers whose sense of altruism failed to override their instinct for self-preservation. Furloughs were curtailed and girlfriends of soldiers were expelled from camp; above all, lengthy floggings were introduced for all practices that Washington considered esthetically or morally offensive. He even had the temerity to urge Congress to raise the maximum number of strikes of the lash from 39 to the enormous number of 500; fortunately, Congress refused." - Murray Rothbard[1]


Not true.
This guy is distorting the truth.

"As might have been expected, the wealthy and aristocratic Washington, free from money worries, had little understanding of the economic plight of his soldiery. In contrast to the legends about his compassion, Washington railed about the defecting troops as being possessed of a "dirty mercenary spirit" and of "basely deserting the cause of their country." - Murray Rothbard[1]


This is true but taken out of context.

And he goes on.

[1] http://mises.org...

This guy has no real idea of the events that took place.
He comes off as an orator, but as socrates has explain, speaking to people that are ignorant to the truth.

Oratory is a tragic thing and it shows in this "essay"

Look I am not saying George Washington was perfect, far from it, but you should not take him out of context either.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2010 8:56:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/3/2010 8:39:08 PM, comoncents wrote:

I disliked... FDR, I think we could have gone with less social programs, was in office too long.

I will admit, I like FDR. Besides, those social programs were certainly needed at the time. He also actually somewhat tried to negotiate with the USSR. Too bad he died before the conferences held at the end of the war.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2010 9:03:31 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/3/2010 8:56:29 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 3/3/2010 8:39:08 PM, comoncents wrote:

I disliked... FDR, I think we could have gone with less social programs, was in office too long.

I will admit, I like FDR. Besides, those social programs were certainly needed at the time. He also actually somewhat tried to negotiate with the USSR. Too bad he died before the conferences held at the end of the war.

Yeah, I can see where you, or anyone for that matter, would think that.
He did set us up for a few good years, but with the reports coming out that less social programs could have worked just as well b/c a product of timing can be seen if you look hard enough.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2010 9:04:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/3/2010 9:03:31 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 3/3/2010 8:56:29 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 3/3/2010 8:39:08 PM, comoncents wrote:

I disliked... FDR, I think we could have gone with less social programs, was in office too long.

I will admit, I like FDR. Besides, those social programs were certainly needed at the time. He also actually somewhat tried to negotiate with the USSR. Too bad he died before the conferences held at the end of the war.

Yeah, I can see where you, or anyone for that matter, would think that.
He did set us up for a few good years, but with the reports coming out that less social programs could have worked just as well b/c a product of timing can be seen if you look hard enough.

And some attribute our problems today b/c of those programs.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2010 9:05:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
When I think of FDR now, I think of what would have happened had he been in charge instead of Truman near the end of the war in the Pacific. Would the bombs still have been dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima?
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2010 9:06:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/3/2010 9:05:21 PM, Volkov wrote:
When I think of FDR now, I think of what would have happened had he been in charge instead of Truman near the end of the war in the Pacific. Would the bombs still have been dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima?

Good point.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2010 9:13:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/3/2010 9:10:44 PM, comoncents wrote:
I hate to say it but I think Theodore Roosevelt was a bit of a disaster.

"When compared with the suppression of anarchy every other question sinks into insignificance. The anarchist is the enemy of humanity, the enemy of all mankind, and his is a deeper degree of criminality than any other. No immigrant is allowed to come to our shores if he is an anarchist; and no paper published here or abroad should be permitted circulation in this country if it propagates anarchist opinions." - Theodore Roosevelt
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
studentathletechristian8
Posts: 5,810
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2010 9:37:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I personally liked: Thomas Jefferson as a whole; parts of Nixon; parts of TR

I personally disliked: many of the idealists (i.e. parts of Kennedy, parts of FDR, etc.); Monroe; not a big fan of the Republican stream that started in the 20's (Coolidge, something, Hoover?)
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2010 9:57:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/3/2010 9:37:06 PM, studentathletechristian8 wrote:
not a big fan of the Republican stream that started in the 20's (Coolidge, something, Hoover?)

They really didn't do much. We're currently talking about that in my US history class.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2010 9:58:16 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/3/2010 9:57:09 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
They really didn't do much. We're currently talking about that in my US history class.

I wish!
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2010 9:59:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Grover Cleveland, hands down.

And Reasoning, you know that's ridiculous. I don't recommend that it be forced on everyone, but a military HAS GOT to be disciplined in order to succeed. The men were VOLUNTEERS; no one was forcing them to fight.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2010 10:13:23 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I really don't know, they all seem so flawed.

I wish Benjamin Franklin had ran for president, he would have definitely been my favorite.

Thomas Paine too, but he probably wouldn't have won.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2010 10:19:52 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/3/2010 10:13:23 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Thomas Paine too, but he probably wouldn't have won.

Thomas Paine would have been the best, agreed.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
LevChernyi
Posts: 8
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2010 6:15:39 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I am not a fan of presidents in general (anarchist) however Thomas Jefferson would be my number one, and of course I would love to see Ron or Rand Paul elected. As for my least favorite, hmmmm.... I'd have to put John Adams near the bottom, along with fascist Abe, FDR, Wilson, and Bush, as for Obama, certainly not my favorite, but we've seen worse.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2010 6:50:03 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/3/2010 8:44:32 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 3/3/2010 8:39:08 PM, comoncents wrote:
Like I like Washington.
He was smart, courageous, invited a common sense central government, gave us the true model of what a president should be, could handle power and was just a great political mind.

"In June of 1775, George Washington was appointed Major General and elected by Congress to be commander in chief of the American revolutionary forces. Although he took up his tasks energetically, Washington accomplished nothing militarily for the remainder of the year and more, nor did he try. His only campaign in 1775 was internal rather than external; it was directed against the American army as he found it, and was designed to extirpate the spirit of liberty pervading this unusually individualistic and democratic army of militiamen. In short, Washington set out to transform a people's army, uniquely suited for a libertarian revolution, into another orthodox and despotically ruled statist force after the familiar European model." - Murray Rothbard[1]

"His [Washington's] primary aim was to crush the individualistic and democratic spirit of the American forces. For one thing, the officers of the militia were elected by their own men, and the discipline of repeated elections kept the officers from forming an aristocratic ruling caste typical of European armies of the period. The officers often drew little more pay than their men, and there were no hierarchical distinctions of rank imposed between officers and men. As a consequence, officers could not enforce their wills coercively on the soldiery. This New England equality horrified Washington's conservative and highly aristocratic soul." - Murray Rothbard[1]

"In addition to imposing a web of hierarchy on the Continental Army, Washington crushed liberty within by replacing individual responsibility by iron despotism and coercion. Severe and brutal punishments were imposed upon those soldiers whose sense of altruism failed to override their instinct for self-preservation. Furloughs were curtailed and girlfriends of soldiers were expelled from camp; above all, lengthy floggings were introduced for all practices that Washington considered esthetically or morally offensive. He even had the temerity to urge Congress to raise the maximum number of strikes of the lash from 39 to the enormous number of 500; fortunately, Congress refused." - Murray Rothbard[1]

"As might have been expected, the wealthy and aristocratic Washington, free from money worries, had little understanding of the economic plight of his soldiery. In contrast to the legends about his compassion, Washington railed about the defecting troops as being possessed of a "dirty mercenary spirit" and of "basely deserting the cause of their country." - Murray Rothbard[1]

And he goes on.

[1] http://mises.org...

The stupidity and bias of this Murray Rothbard leaves me speechless.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.