10 Best Presidents of the USA

1. William Henry Harrison.

The rest suck by comparison

At 1/8/2012 2:32:04 PM, jimtimmy wrote:

At 1/8/2012 2:26:38 PM, 000ike wrote:

At 1/8/2012 2:22:55 PM, jimtimmy wrote:

At 1/8/2012 2:21:13 PM, 000ike wrote:

At 1/8/2012 2:18:11 PM, jimtimmy wrote:


I never said any race is inferior to another. So, that is just a lie. I have said there are differences, but no race is superior.

Oh, so being INHERENTLY dumber is not inferior? ....You're more intellectually dishonest than I thought.

No, it is not. Who said intelligence means superior?

Africans are more athletic and probably have better survival skills.

Differences, not superiority.

This is so dishonest I can't tolerate it. Being dumber than one else is obviously asserting intellectual inferiority. Being more athletic than one else is asserting athletic superiority. You just don't want to use these words because they are the reality of your position, they are the reality of your views that accurately characterize what is so erroneous about them. Thats why you're pushing this nonsense.

Do you believe that racial differences even exist?

But, if calling someone what they are is not an insult, then me calling Royalpaladin stupid was not an insult. I explained some of the things she has said in an above comment. It those things don't make someone stupid, I don't know what does.

Now, I know this may not seem like taking the high road. But, if you're going to make these absurd arguments. I will respond logically and fully.

"With all deliberate speed" also meant I was calling you racist, since you missed that one. :)

How does "with all deliberate speed" mean racist?

Look it up.....or learn some American History please.

I know what it means. You have called me a racist, in some way, on every thread.

To clarify for all: "with all deliberate speed" was part of the opinion in Brown v Board II which essentially said "desegregation is bad, but take as long as you want to stop it."

At 1/8/2012 3:18:04 PM, Wnope wrote:

To clarify for all: "with all deliberate speed" was part of the opinion in Brown v Board II which essentially said "desegregation is bad, but take as long as you want to stop it."

How does Brown's decision mean desegregation is bad and take as long as you want to stop it?

At 1/8/2012 3:24:29 PM, 000ike wrote:

At 1/8/2012 3:18:04 PM, Wnope wrote:

To clarify for all: "with all deliberate speed" was part of the opinion in Brown v Board II which essentially said "desegregation is bad, but take as long as you want to stop it."

How does Brown's decision mean desegregation is bad and take as long as you want to stop it?

Not Brown v Board, Brown v Board II.

There was a second trial on the question of how incorporation of the Brown v Board ruling was to go. The schools essentially said they didn't have the resources to integrate immediately, so they went to the Supreme Court.

The court said that they do have to integrate, but there is no forced deadline and no metric past what is "reasonable" for each individual case.

At 1/8/2012 3:27:09 PM, Wnope wrote:

At 1/8/2012 3:24:29 PM, 000ike wrote:

At 1/8/2012 3:18:04 PM, Wnope wrote:

To clarify for all: "with all deliberate speed" was part of the opinion in Brown v Board II which essentially said "desegregation is bad, but take as long as you want to stop it."

How does Brown's decision mean desegregation is bad and take as long as you want to stop it?

Not Brown v Board, Brown v Board II.

There was a second trial on the question of how incorporation of the Brown v Board ruling was to go. The schools essentially said they didn't have the resources to integrate immediately, so they went to the Supreme Court.

The court said that they do have to integrate, but there is no forced deadline and no metric past what is "reasonable" for each individual case.

I'm not sure the reason for that decision, but I highly highly highly doubt Warren would want desegregation stopped or delayed.

At 1/8/2012 3:31:30 PM, 000ike wrote:

At 1/8/2012 3:27:09 PM, Wnope wrote:

At 1/8/2012 3:24:29 PM, 000ike wrote:

At 1/8/2012 3:18:04 PM, Wnope wrote:

To clarify for all: "with all deliberate speed" was part of the opinion in Brown v Board II which essentially said "desegregation is bad, but take as long as you want to stop it."

How does Brown's decision mean desegregation is bad and take as long as you want to stop it?

Not Brown v Board, Brown v Board II.

There was a second trial on the question of how incorporation of the Brown v Board ruling was to go. The schools essentially said they didn't have the resources to integrate immediately, so they went to the Supreme Court.

The court said that they do have to integrate, but there is no forced deadline and no metric past what is "reasonable" for each individual case.

I'm not sure the reason for that decision, but I highly highly highly doubt Warren would want desegregation stopped or delayed.

Well, imagine the situation.

Assume there is a school that is extremely low on resources, and they actually economically cannot afford to integrate.

Now, a school in another state has excess resources and could integrate tomorrow.

A ruling of either "integrate now" or "integrate on this date" would either screw over resource-low school system or screw blacks in the resouce-high school system from immediate benefits.

Incorporation of the bill of rights to a state was controversial enough. If Brown II ruled that everyone had to integrate by next year, and a govenor chose not to integrate, you'd have the Little Rock crisis PLUS a constitutional clusterf*ck which would devalue the Supreme Court.

Something to remember, the Supreme Court during the beginning of incorporation were on shaky ground. It's not like today where the SCOTUS is seen as extremely powerful powergrabbers.

SCOTUS, especially the Warren Court, couldn't go too radical or they would end up being invalidated by the congress and states. It's somewhat similar to the move SCOTUS made in Marbury v. Madison: if they had tried to make a hard decision, the President would have probably ignored them. So, instead, they said "we aren't allowed to decide Marbury v. Madison" which incidentally created judicial review.

It's not just about what each justice wants ideologically. They had to balance out the effects of their rulings and the need to preserve the "dignity" of the court.

At 1/8/2012 3:39:40 PM, Wnope wrote:

At 1/8/2012 3:31:30 PM, 000ike wrote:

At 1/8/2012 3:27:09 PM, Wnope wrote:

At 1/8/2012 3:24:29 PM, 000ike wrote:

At 1/8/2012 3:18:04 PM, Wnope wrote:

To clarify for all: "with all deliberate speed" was part of the opinion in Brown v Board II which essentially said "desegregation is bad, but take as long as you want to stop it."

How does Brown's decision mean desegregation is bad and take as long as you want to stop it?

Not Brown v Board, Brown v Board II.

There was a second trial on the question of how incorporation of the Brown v Board ruling was to go. The schools essentially said they didn't have the resources to integrate immediately, so they went to the Supreme Court.

The court said that they do have to integrate, but there is no forced deadline and no metric past what is "reasonable" for each individual case.

I'm not sure the reason for that decision, but I highly highly highly doubt Warren would want desegregation stopped or delayed.

Well, imagine the situation.

Assume there is a school that is extremely low on resources, and they actually economically cannot afford to integrate.

Now, a school in another state has excess resources and could integrate tomorrow.

A ruling of either "integrate now" or "integrate on this date" would either screw over resource-low school system or screw blacks in the resouce-high school system from immediate benefits.

Incorporation of the bill of rights to a state was controversial enough. If Brown II ruled that everyone had to integrate by next year, and a govenor chose not to integrate, you'd have the Little Rock crisis PLUS a constitutional clusterf*ck which would devalue the Supreme Court.

Something to remember, the Supreme Court during the beginning of incorporation were on shaky ground. It's not like today where the SCOTUS is seen as extremely powerful powergrabbers.

SCOTUS, especially the Warren Court, couldn't go too radical or they would end up being invalidated by the congress and states. It's somewhat similar to the move SCOTUS made in Marbury v. Madison: if they had tried to make a hard decision, the President would have probably ignored them. So, instead, they said "we aren't allowed to decide Marbury v. Madison" which incidentally created judicial review.

It's not just about what each justice wants ideologically. They had to balance out the effects of their rulings and the need to preserve the "dignity" of the court.

Oh, that makes sense though. The way you put it across initially I thought you meant the Brown decisions were disingenuous.

At 1/8/2012 3:43:59 PM, 000ike wrote:

At 1/8/2012 3:39:40 PM, Wnope wrote:

At 1/8/2012 3:31:30 PM, 000ike wrote:

At 1/8/2012 3:27:09 PM, Wnope wrote:

At 1/8/2012 3:24:29 PM, 000ike wrote:

At 1/8/2012 3:18:04 PM, Wnope wrote:

To clarify for all: "with all deliberate speed" was part of the opinion in Brown v Board II which essentially said "desegregation is bad, but take as long as you want to stop it."

How does Brown's decision mean desegregation is bad and take as long as you want to stop it?

Not Brown v Board, Brown v Board II.

There was a second trial on the question of how incorporation of the Brown v Board ruling was to go. The schools essentially said they didn't have the resources to integrate immediately, so they went to the Supreme Court.

The court said that they do have to integrate, but there is no forced deadline and no metric past what is "reasonable" for each individual case.

I'm not sure the reason for that decision, but I highly highly highly doubt Warren would want desegregation stopped or delayed.

Well, imagine the situation.

Assume there is a school that is extremely low on resources, and they actually economically cannot afford to integrate.

Now, a school in another state has excess resources and could integrate tomorrow.

A ruling of either "integrate now" or "integrate on this date" would either screw over resource-low school system or screw blacks in the resouce-high school system from immediate benefits.

Incorporation of the bill of rights to a state was controversial enough. If Brown II ruled that everyone had to integrate by next year, and a govenor chose not to integrate, you'd have the Little Rock crisis PLUS a constitutional clusterf*ck which would devalue the Supreme Court.

Something to remember, the Supreme Court during the beginning of incorporation were on shaky ground. It's not like today where the SCOTUS is seen as extremely powerful powergrabbers.

SCOTUS, especially the Warren Court, couldn't go too radical or they would end up being invalidated by the congress and states. It's somewhat similar to the move SCOTUS made in Marbury v. Madison: if they had tried to make a hard decision, the President would have probably ignored them. So, instead, they said "we aren't allowed to decide Marbury v. Madison" which incidentally created judicial review.

It's not just about what each justice wants ideologically. They had to balance out the effects of their rulings and the need to preserve the "dignity" of the court.

Oh, that makes sense though. The way you put it across initially I thought you meant the Brown decisions were disingenuous.

Far from it. The Brown I opinion was written specifically to be read by the public and to show unanimous support by all judges.

@ jat83

Liberals support individual liberties, which was a betrayal of John Adams with the Alien and Sedition Acts. That was an authoritative action, not liberal. Please get your facts straight before saying them.

"Public officers are the servants and agents of the people, to execute the laws which the people have made." - Grover Cleveland

Though the other quotes range from partly good to dandy, this isn't a libertarian quote, it's a collectivist one.

At 1/8/2012 2:48:11 AM, jm_notguilty wrote:

At 1/8/2012 2:31:26 AM, OberHerr wrote:
Oh God, just wait for the Liberal floodgates.

*Cowers in a corner*

Seriously, prove to me how that guy who was hit by a shoe is better than Lincoln or Teddy Roosevelt... or Woodrow Wilson, FDR or JFK.

Wait, never mind the last three, I already know the answer... as usual.

He dodged it.

At 1/9/2012 12:10:09 AM, DanT wrote:

At 1/8/2012 2:48:11 AM, jm_notguilty wrote:

At 1/8/2012 2:31:26 AM, OberHerr wrote:
Oh God, just wait for the Liberal floodgates.

*Cowers in a corner*

Seriously, prove to me how that guy who was hit by a shoe is better than Lincoln or Teddy Roosevelt... or Woodrow Wilson, FDR or JFK.

Wait, never mind the last three, I already know the answer... as usual.

He dodged it.

Who dodged what?

At 1/8/2012 2:31:26 AM, OberHerr wrote:

At 1/8/2012 2:20:27 AM, jimtimmy wrote:

At 1/8/2012 2:12:53 AM, jm_notguilty wrote:

At 1/8/2012 12:54:12 AM, jimtimmy wrote:
6.) George W Bush

Don't know if actually trolling... or just stupid. But still:

............................................________
....................................,.-'"...................``~.,
.............................,.-"..................................."-.,
.........................,/...............................................":,
.....................,?......................................................,
.................../...........................................................,}
................./......................................................,:`^`..}
.............../...................................................,:"........./
..............?.....__.........................................:`.........../
............./__.(....."~-,_..............................,:`........../
.........../(_...."~,_........"~,_....................,:`........_/
..........{.._$;_......"=,_......."-,_.......,.-~-,},.~";/....}
...........((.....*~_......."=-._......";,,./`..../"............../
...,,,___.`~,......"~.,....................`.....}............../
............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-"
............/.`~,......`-...................................../
.............`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....,__
,,_..........}.>-._...................................|..............`=~-,
.....`=~-,__......`,.................................
...................`=~-,,.,...............................
................................`:,,...........................`..............__
.....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==``
........................................_..........._,-%.......`
...................................,

You're right. George W Bush is definitley better than 6th. He is at least in the top three.

Oh God, just wait for the Liberal floodgates.

*Cowers in a corner*

that's a cool drawing

At 1/9/2012 12:22:50 AM, jimtimmy wrote:

At 1/9/2012 12:10:09 AM, DanT wrote:

At 1/8/2012 2:48:11 AM, jm_notguilty wrote:

At 1/8/2012 2:31:26 AM, OberHerr wrote:
Oh God, just wait for the Liberal floodgates.

*Cowers in a corner*

Seriously, prove to me how that guy who was hit by a shoe is better than Lincoln or Teddy Roosevelt... or Woodrow Wilson, FDR or JFK.

Wait, never mind the last three, I already know the answer... as usual.

He dodged it.

Who dodged what?

Bush dodged shoes

At 1/9/2012 12:45:05 AM, DanT wrote:

At 1/9/2012 12:22:50 AM, jimtimmy wrote:

At 1/9/2012 12:10:09 AM, DanT wrote:

At 1/8/2012 2:48:11 AM, jm_notguilty wrote:

At 1/8/2012 2:31:26 AM, OberHerr wrote:
Oh God, just wait for the Liberal floodgates.

*Cowers in a corner*

Seriously, prove to me how that guy who was hit by a shoe is better than Lincoln or Teddy Roosevelt... or Woodrow Wilson, FDR or JFK.

Wait, never mind the last three, I already know the answer... as usual.

He dodged it.

Who dodged what?

Bush dodged shoes

Nice.

Most of the lists I have seen so far stem from some force fed republican or democrat pseudo-ideology. There is no real methodology behind the top tens, so I'll provide a presidential ranking based on three criteria: Peace, Prosperity, and Freedom.

10 Best:
1) John Tyler
2) Grover Cleveland
3) Martin Van Buren
4) Rutherford B. Hayes
5) Chester A. Arthur
6) Warren G. Harding
7) George Washington
8) Jimmy Carter
9) Dwight D. Eisenhower
10) Calvin Coolidge

10 Worst (1 being worst):
1) Woodrow Wilson
2) Harry S Truman
3) William McKinley
4) James K. Polk
5) George W. Bush
6) John F. Kennedy
7) Ronald Reagan
8) George H.W. Bush
9) Lyndon B. Johnson
10) Franklin D. Roosevelt

If you would like me to explain why a certain president is one of the best or one of the worst, just ask. Don't respond to this post by copying the entire thing. That's wasteful and annoying.

-Austen

@WSA could u tell me why for each president?

There is only one good president and that is...THOMAS JEFFERSON!

1) Washington
2) Lincoln
3) FDR
4) Jefferson
5) Wilson
6) Clinton
7) Teddy Roosevelt
8) Lyndon B Johnson
9) JFK
10) James K Polk

to anyone who thinks im crazy,

...................../´¯/)
...................,/¯../
.................../..../
............./´¯/'....'/ ¯¯\
........../'/.../...../....../¨¯\
........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
.........\.................'...../
..........\................._.·´
............\..............(
..............\.............\...

At 2/21/2012 1:26:00 AM, imabench wrote:
1) Washington
2) Lincoln
3) FDR
4) Jefferson
5) Wilson
6) Clinton
7) Teddy Roosevelt
8) Lyndon B Johnson
9) JFK
10) James K Polk

to anyone who thinks im crazy,


...................../´¯/)
...................,/¯../
.................../..../
............./´¯/'....'/ ¯¯\
........../'/.../...../....../¨¯\
........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
.........\.................'...../
..........\................._.·´
............\..............(
..............\.............\...

Wow... really?

1. Thomas Jefferson
2. James Madison
3. Ron Paul
4. John F. Kennedy
5. Grover Cleveland
6. Dwight Eisenhower
7. George Washington
8. Calvin Coolidge
9. Andrew Jackson
10. Martin Van Buren

At 2/21/2012 3:36:20 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
3. Ron Paul

Ron Paul has not, nor ever shall be, President of the USA.

At 2/21/2012 6:58:36 AM, Volkov wrote:

At 2/21/2012 3:36:20 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
3. Ron Paul

Ron Paul has not, nor ever shall be, President of the USA.

THIS.

At 2/21/2012 9:11:49 AM, OberHerr wrote:

At 2/21/2012 6:58:36 AM, Volkov wrote:

At 2/21/2012 3:36:20 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
3. Ron Paul

Ron Paul has not, nor ever shall be, President of the USA.

THIS.

*Claps*

At 1/8/2012 12:08:25 AM, jimtimmy wrote:
Here are the 10 Best Presidents of the USA, in order from best to 10th best:

1.) Thomas Jefferson

2.) George Washington

3.) Calvin Coolidge

4.) Grover Cleveland

5.) Ronald Reagan

6.) George W Bush

7.) Warren Harding

8.) William Taft

9.) James Madison

10.) John Adams

Here they are in my opinion (in no particular order)

1) George Washington
2) Abraham Lincoln
3) Ronald Regan
4) Franklin Roosevelt
5) Theodore Roosevelt
6) John Adams
7) Thomas Jefferson
8) John F. Kennedy
9) Harry S. Truman
10) Eisenhower