Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Right now, I'd say Jimmy Carter is the worst President in history. Carter was the Commander and Chief in a hectic time where no one could be considered a success, but he somehow had the knack to make such a shitty time even more shittier with his policy.

-People kidnap our guys.
-We sell them weapons for our guys back.
-We make money.
-Those "guys" are now able to better attack those who are alligned with the Soviet Union.

That's how things were done back then. PROXY WARS!

And "thoes guys" were also Osma Bin Laden and his Pals good going.

They have an ability to see the future? Cool.

sarcasm

i would say nixon was definately pure evil

Nixon and Bush are excellent presidents in an economic sense. (I know I'm going to get yelled for it but it IS true.) Carter is the worst in history. He was more of a joke than Ford and was made a fool of by the shah and the rest of Iran. This problem segwayed into many problems we have now with the middle east.

Come on, guys. You're misunderestimating President Bush. He'll find you guys by looking on the Google, and he'll make you pay, you suiciders!

bush!

At 12/1/07 04:51 AM, subzerov wrote: bush!

If you think Bush is bad you ought to look up the shit Lincoln did. He made Clinton and Bushes violence and control look like childsplay.

At 11/27/07 07:45 AM, Idiot-Finder wrote:

At 11/26/07 01:21 AM, iiREDii wrote: I would have to say that Abe Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and FDR were by far the WORST of the WORST. Matter of fact the only presidents we have ever had that were worth a damn at all would be Jefferson, Cleveland, and Coolidge.

Can I have whatever you're smoking?

I see someone has absolutely no background in history... Look up Lincoln, Teddy, Wilson, FDR... fascists and slaughterers of man. Civil rights violators and Constitution smashers. Free speech enemies and warmongerers.

At 12/14/07 01:50 AM, iiREDii wrote: I see someone has absolutely no background in history... Look up Lincoln, Teddy, Wilson, FDR... fascists and slaughterers of man. Civil rights violators and Constitution smashers. Free speech enemies and warmongerers.

You're crazy.

All four of those men could be considered top ten best Presidents. Three of them could be top five.

At 12/14/07 01:52 AM, public-enemy1 wrote:

At 12/14/07 01:50 AM, iiREDii wrote: I see someone has absolutely no background in history... Look up Lincoln, Teddy, Wilson, FDR... fascists and slaughterers of man. Civil rights violators and Constitution smashers. Free speech enemies and warmongerers.

You're crazy.

All four of those men could be considered top ten best Presidents. Three of them could be top five.

No. I am not crazy. I am better versed in hostory than you.

Lincoln for example:
- shut down free presses with troops
- jailed reporters
- had protestors shot by federal union troops in the streets of New York and elsewhere
- raised taxes on border southern towns so high that entire villages were thrown in prisons with conditions similair to guantonamo bay.
- deported an ohio congressman who oppposed the war
- declared total war on his own people (total war on the south, total war is when the governemtn targts civilians as well as military targets)
- jailed and threatened supreme and minor court judges
- conscripted thousands of people (most of whom just happened to also be Irish, the Irish were once looked down upon as immigrants much like Mexicans today)
- responsible for millions of dollars of damage and entire cities being burnt to the ground
- occupied and forced the south into a government not of their own choosing
- had dissenters and protesters jailed without trial
- violated 3rd amendment by quartering soldiers in peoples homes
- raised tariffs and taxes to a absurd degree to help spur war with the south, provoking them to leave the union.
- expanded and abused the powerof the presidency more than Bush, Clinton, and FDR combined
- wanted blacks deported to africa
- established one of the first fiat currency systems

the list goes on

At 12/14/07 02:17 AM, iiREDii wrote: No. I am not crazy. I am better versed in hostory than you.

this is the internet, a street whore could pretend to be the president.

Lincoln for example:

funny thing is, he was hated during his presidency. atleast most of it, and now hes regarded as a national hero. if history repeats itself then maybe in 100 years people will look back and say bush was a good/great president.

the list goes on

i guess your list of un-sourced wild claims totally backs up your non-sense argument.

At 12/14/07 02:17 AM, iiREDii wrote:

At 12/14/07 01:52 AM, public-enemy1 wrote:

At 12/14/07 01:50 AM, iiREDii wrote:

list of garbage

source, please

At 12/14/07 02:44 AM, fahrenheit wrote:

At 12/14/07 02:17 AM, iiREDii wrote: Lincoln for example:

funny thing is, he was hated during his presidency. atleast most of it, and now hes regarded as a national hero. if history repeats itself then maybe in 100 years people will look back and say bush was a good/great president.

excellent point.

the list goes on

i guess your list of un-sourced wild claims totally backs up your non-sense argument.

ha. well I was not asked to either. Nor is it typically expected on such informal forums of discusssion like newgronds. However two books I can provide right off the top of my head: War Crimes Against Southern Civilians, and The real Lincoln. ANy writings by Thomas DiLorenzo are excellent and a certain man who is pro Lincoln (whose name escapes me at the moment but I can find it if you want). The pro Lincoln guy is a good source becuase he spent the entire book outlining all thse terrible things and then he concludes the book on a chapter feabily defending it as neccesary to 'preserve the union'. Its rather disgusting.

I often compare the civil war to the iraw war, and going with that... the pro lincoln guys book is like describing all the deaths Bush has caused and the devestation to that nation and the woes of the iraqi people and then saying it was to 'protect democracy'.

Although Sorely tempting to point at Nixon and Bush Jr, I think the worst president is Woodrow Wilson.

Our history books completely remake the guy into some kind of patron saint for democracy--this is a cold, complete falsehood. So, I understand why no one really suggests him.

Screwed up points to consider:

Wilson SEGREGATED the armed forces (they weren't segregated before his presidency).
He crafted a piece of legislation far worse than the Patriot Act (The Espionage Act) which resulted in arrests of "non-patriotic" activities.
Wilson dorked with Latin America to a degree no US president had, or hopefully ever will again. (Over 1 dozen US interventions during his presidency)
The PALMER RAIDS under his presidency was a massive government SNAFU that resulted in a major governent crackdown against innocent people.
His actions revived the KKK.
Although History books like to blame Republician Henry-Cabot Lodge for being the "obstructionist" that killed the US ratification of the League of Nations, Wilson played politics with USA's victory in WW1--a game that ended when he got a stroke. Sound like 9-11 to anyone?
The WW1 peace process was so well done that a sequel war was launched 20 years later--Way to go Wilson!!

Woodrow Wilson was the worst disaster to ever befall the presidency. He's like Bush, except five terms worse.

At 12/14/07 02:17 AM, iiREDii wrote:

At 12/14/07 01:52 AM, public-enemy1 wrote:

At 12/14/07 01:50 AM, iiREDii wrote: I see someone has absolutely no background in history... Look up Lincoln, Teddy, Wilson, FDR... fascists and slaughterers of man. Civil rights violators and Constitution smashers. Free speech enemies and warmongerers.

You're crazy.

All four of those men could be considered top ten best Presidents. Three of them could be top five.

No. I am not crazy. I am better versed in hostory than you.

Lincoln for example:
- shut down free presses with troops
- jailed reporters
- had protestors shot by federal union troops in the streets of New York and elsewhere
- raised taxes on border southern towns so high that entire villages were thrown in prisons with conditions similair to guantonamo bay.
- deported an ohio congressman who oppposed the war
- declared total war on his own people (total war on the south, total war is when the governemtn targts civilians as well as military targets)
- jailed and threatened supreme and minor court judges
- conscripted thousands of people (most of whom just happened to also be Irish, the Irish were once looked down upon as immigrants much like Mexicans today)
- responsible for millions of dollars of damage and entire cities being burnt to the ground
- occupied and forced the south into a government not of their own choosing
- had dissenters and protesters jailed without trial
- violated 3rd amendment by quartering soldiers in peoples homes
- raised tariffs and taxes to a absurd degree to help spur war with the south, provoking them to leave the union.
- expanded and abused the powerof the presidency more than Bush, Clinton, and FDR combined
- wanted blacks deported to africa
- established one of the first fiat currency systems

the list goes on

A lot of this I know to be true--this isn't a fabrication.
Federal Troops did intervene throughout the Border States, definitely violating the election processes of those countries. Missouri's legislature moved to secede, but Unionist forces hand-picked the new constitution writers, who aborted the procedure.

The Ohio Congressman was not a run of the mill person--his name was Clarance Vallandigham, and he definitely wasn't innocent himself--he did instigate and provoke violence. His Deportation to Canada is an act of mercy, when one considers that his actions were TREASON and CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT MURDER.

Conscription happened on both sides of the Civil War--indeed, it happened in every war up until Vietnam. It's not a particular problem--and Union didn't move to conscription until 1863 in the war.

Blaming Lincoln for Damages and Wartime destruction misses the point. The South was hot to secede, and in the process of seceding, it fired on a Union Garrison and seized Federal Property. Lincoln might have reacted harshly--but bear in mind that this is a reaction to a legitimate grievance.

Lincoln didn't raise taxes UNTIL the south Seceded. He needed the money that taxes and bonds provided to fight the war. He must certainly didn't provoke the South--the South seceded because their commitment to Federal Democracy was conditional--they only stayed in the Union as long as they had power over the rest of the country. Lincoln, for the first time in 50 years, was not heavily favorable to Southern Interests. Of course, Lincoln's own views against the expansion of Slavery meant that President Lincoln would head towards emancipation, not oversee it himself (All Lincoln intended to do, was keep slavery out of new territories)

As for abusing Presidential Power, in times of War the presidents power increases--its part of his powers of Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the UNited States. IN a situation where one third of the country is open revolt and another sixth is very fragile, the US Army becomes a critical element of control. Lincoln was fighting a war on his own soil. It was not always an offensive war, either: Confederate Forces moved throughout Kentucky and Maryland; Gettysburg is in Pennsylvania. Did Lincoln get more power; yes he did. Is this abusive? No--Lincoln might not to have followed his exact methods, but civil liberties are expected to take a hit in a war.

Blacks to Africa: Well, once the slaves are free, how are the former slave owners going to treat them? Not very well, obviously. For the Next century, Blacks lived as second class citizens and faced sick oppression from what was supposed to be a democratic country. Easy to Forgive Lincoln for trying to get Blacks out of such abuses, even if the whole Liberian export deal lacked feasibility. As long as it was voluntary (and it was), I fail to see any wrongness in his actions.

The point, I suppose, is that Lincoln did what he had to preserve the Union and uphold the constitution. The Constitution is a DEAD LETTER if the South can devise their own monkey Constitution which formalizes slavery. One of the basic elements of democracy is that the winners get their outcome, and the losers accept the outcome. The Confederate attitude is that of a sore loser--I didn't win, so now I'm going to quit.

The only way one can really call Lincoln a bad leader is with the idea that the South should have been allowed to Secede--but how does that make things better for anyone? Far from enjoying incredible economic growth after the Civil War, the North and the South are going to have to point guns at each other. Slavery might have continued in the South until 1914! The South Seceding invariably leads to a rematch--the USA abolishes Slavery, even if it loses the war--and then slaves need only make it to Kentucky or Maryland to Escape. The USA and CSA never resolved issues of territory in the west. The USA/CSA polarization gets added into the maze of world diplomacy, guaranteeing a rematch at latest of the first world war. The CSA doesn't really win, either--with the Confederate Constitution locking slavery into the system, they are stuck with a system that aggravates the world and the working man. The entire slave system worked nicely when the CSA could export cotton at high prices throughout the world--but the cotton boom is fading in the 1870s, and the Confederate working-man finds himself in competition with slave labor to his great detriment.

Lincoln broke the laws; but he had just cause.

You all forget James Buchanan the only president to come from pennslyvania.
I have two lists of US presidents ranking in front of me that are in a college text book.
One list is from the Wall Street Journal the other is C-SPAN (wall streets omits garfield and harrison because there short terms) but in both rankings buchanan is dead last and i don't blame them for saying it I mean the only thing i can remember him as is the president before Lincoln and I usually at least remember something about every president lol. But in both list the top seven are fairly similar.

I'll post them:

Wall Street Journal Rankings: C-SPAN Rankings:
1. George Washington 1. Abraham Lincoln
2. Abraham Lincoln 2. Franklin D. Roosevelt
3. Franklin D. Roosevelt 3. George Washington
4. Thomas Jefferson 4. Theodore Roosevelt
5. Theodore Roosevelt 5. Harry S. Truman
6. Andrew Jackson 6. Woodrow Wilson
7. Harry Truman 7. Thomas Jefferson

Now just for shits I'll list a few other ranked the numbers will be ranks in Wall Street Journal ann C-SPAN respectively.

24,21 Bill Clinton
21,20 George H. W. Bush (second bush isnt on list yet but I've ask my PolySci professor before and he said like 25-30 but thats doesn't mean anything unless you've heard him)
17, 10 Lyndon B. Johnson
11, 6 Woodrow Wilson
32, 33 Ulysses S. Grant
8, 10 Ronald Reagan

Yeah I'm done.

At 12/14/07 02:44 AM, fahrenheit wrote:

the list goes on

i guess your list of un-sourced wild claims totally backs up your non-sense argument.

At least Michael Moore will finally have some competition.

At 12/14/07 01:50 AM, iiREDii wrote:

I see someone has absolutely no background in history...

Like you?

At 12/14/07 10:15 AM, BlueMax wrote:

At 12/14/07 02:17 AM, iiREDii wrote:

At 12/14/07 01:52 AM, public-enemy1 wrote:

At 12/14/07 01:50 AM, iiREDii wrote: I see someone has absolutely no background in history... Look up Lincoln, Teddy, Wilson, FDR... fascists and slaughterers of man. Civil rights violators and Constitution smashers. Free speech enemies and warmongerers.

You're crazy.

All four of those men could be considered top ten best Presidents. Three of them could be top five.

No. I am
the list goes on

A lot of this I know to be true--this isn't a fabrication.
Federal Troops did intervene throughout the Border States, definitely violating the election processes of those countries. Missouri's legislature moved to secede, but Unionist forces hand-picked the new constitution writers, who aborted the procedure.

The Ohio Congressman was not a run of the mill person--his name was Clarance Vallandigham, and he definitely wasn't innocent himself--he did instigate and provoke violence. His Deportation to Canada is an act of mercy, when one considers that his actions were TREASON and CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT MURDER.

Treason is not a crime. If we have the right of self government, governemtn chosen by the people then we have the right to secede.

Conscription happened on both sides of the Civil War--indeed, it happened in every war up until Vietnam. It's not a particular problem--and Union didn't move to conscription until 1863 in the war.

conscription is evil no matter who does it. It is slavery

Blaming Lincoln for Damages and Wartime destruction misses the point. The South was hot to secede, and in the process of seceding, it fired on a Union Garrison and seized Federal Property. Lincoln might have reacted harshly--but bear in mind that this is a reaction to a legitimate grievance.

it fired upon that garrison in fort sumter after lincoln had resupplied it. They had sent representatives to him in DC in order to buy the fort and other infrastruture from them at all costs. It was LINCOLN who was hot for war when he refused to even speak to them. It was he who was hot for war wheen he consistantly lobbied congress to declare war.

Lincoln didn't raise taxes UNTIL the south Seceded. He needed the money that taxes and bonds provided to fight the war. He must certainly didn't provoke the South--the South seceded because their commitment to Federal Democracy was conditional--they only stayed in the Union as long as they had power over the rest of the country. Lincoln, for the first time in 50 years, was not heavily favorable to Southern Interests. Of course, Lincoln's own views against the expansion of Slavery meant that President Lincoln would head towards emancipation, not oversee it himself (All Lincoln intended to do, was keep slavery out of new territories)

Congress during his time DID raise taxes and these taxes unfairly targetde the south in majority. Taxes were major cause for secession. Lincoln was opposed to blacks remainng here whatsoever.

As for abusing Presidential Power, in times of War the presidents power increases--its part of his powers of Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the UNited States. IN a situation where one third of the country is open revolt and another sixth is very fragile, the US Army becomes a critical element of control. Lincoln was fighting a war on his own soil. It was not always an offensive war, either: Confederate Forces moved throughout Kentucky and Maryland; Gettysburg is in Pennsylvania. Did Lincoln get more power; yes he did. Is this abusive? No--Lincoln might not to have followed his exact methods, but civil liberties are expected to take a hit in a war.

then you must at once excuse the same actions of Mr.Bush. If war against your own people is excuse to expand your power without cause or authority to do so, then what limits ARE upon government? none. Civil liberties are never up for grabs because some war mongering president decides they are getting in his way. MEN have rights, STATES do not.

The point, I suppose, is that Lincoln did what he had to preserve the Union and uphold the constitution. The Constitution is a DEAD LETTER if the South can devise their own monkey Constitution which formalizes slavery. One of the basic elements of democracy is that the winners get their outcome, and the losers accept the outcome. The Confederate attitude is that of a sore loser--I didn't win, so now I'm going to quit.

"No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed [by Congress]" This does not sanction it, only refuse to outlaw it at the time. Importation of slaves was banned from all parts of the south. And VA and NC in particular was attempting to outlaw slavery within its own borders. Slavery was on its way out all over the western world as people came to see it (as i do the government and its supporters) as a morally corrupt institution. The constitution has no authority to bind the states to it. It has no power or clause to support such a claim. As a matter of fact, TEXAS and NEW YORK signed it into existance under the EXPRESSED NOTION that they may LEAVE the union at any time they damn well please.

The only way one can really call Lincoln a bad leader is with the idea that the South should have been allowed to Secede--but how does that make things better for anyone?

because we have a right to decide who our government is or if we have one at all

:Far from enjoying incredible economic growth after the Civil War, the North and the South are going to have to point guns at each other. Slavery might have continued in the South until 1914!

It may have, but far less blood would have been spilt, a empire would not have been established, the governemtn would have less pwoer over the people, and many jim crow laws and resentment for blacks would not have been created. Indee the KKK woudl never have formed!

:The South Seceding invariably leads to a rematch--
only if the damn yanks cant stop themselves from invading... which they have been shown to be ready to do for decades...

:the USA abolishes Slavery, even if it loses the war--and then slaves need only make it to Kentucky or Maryland to Escape.

The federal governemtn you worship so much, I might add, returned slaves who escaped. Prolonging and supporting the slave trade. Without the governemtn protecting it on local and especially federal levels, it would have been TOTALLY economically inviable.

:The USA and CSA never resolved issues of territory in the west. The USA/CSA polarization gets added into the maze of world diplomacy, guaranteeing a rematch at latest of the first world war. The CSA doesn't really win, either--with the Confederate Constitution locking slavery into the system, they are stuck with a system that aggravates the world and the working man. The entire slave system worked nicely when the CSA could export cotton at high prices throughout the world--but the cotton boom is fading in the 1870s, and the Confederate working-man finds himself in competition with slave labor to his great detriment.

Lincoln broke the laws; but he had just cause.

murder on a massive scale is not a just cause.
destroying freedom in the name of liberation is not just cause.
invasion in the name of democracy is not just cause.
governemtn building/forcing governemnts on others is not just cause

are you a fan of the iraq war by chance?

At 12/19/07 02:58 AM, iiREDii wrote:

Treason is not a crime. If we have the right of self government, governemtn chosen by the people then we have the right to secede.

One Common Name: Benedict Arnold.

conscription is evil no matter who does it. It is slavery

But it is also necessary during extreme hardships such as a world war.

it fired upon that garrison in fort sumter after lincoln had resupplied it. They had sent representatives to him in DC in order to buy the fort and other infrastruture from them at all costs. It was LINCOLN who was hot for war when he refused to even speak to them. It was he who was hot for war wheen he consistantly lobbied congress to declare war.

Simpley because he refused to speak with them in not a need to ignite a national conflict which resulted in the death of 2% of the population at that time.

They were on the brink of seperation and needed to be stopped.

Congress during his time DID raise taxes and these taxes unfairly targetde the south in majority. Taxes were major cause for secession. Lincoln was opposed to blacks remainng here whatsoever.

That was his attitude before the start of the US civil war. During this inner conflict Lincoln visited many soldiers and eventually came to realization of Equality for blacks in the nation.

Though it is true that blacks also fought for the South and some actively sought slavery as a means for shelter, food, and pay.

then you must at once excuse the same actions of Mr.Bush. If war against your own people is excuse to expand your power without cause or authority to do so, then what limits ARE upon government? none. Civil liberties are never up for grabs because some war mongering president decides they are getting in his way. MEN have rights, STATES do not.

I believe what was known as the Confederate States and the Articles of Confederacy as well as the Constitution would disagree with the 'States do not' comment.

because we have a right to decide who our government is or if we have one at all

That's true, but only at the people's will.

And that is why we have elections.

murder on a massive scale is not a just cause.
destroying freedom in the name of liberation is not just cause.
invasion in the name of democracy is not just cause.
governemtn building/forcing governemnts on others is not just cause

are you a fan of the iraq war by chance?

As much as I would disagree with you on many things, you are correct on this. Those who hail Washington, Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Wilson, and FDR turn around at Bush and claim "war monger" when he has done nothing like previous presidents.

I think Bill cliton was. I know allot of people (democrats) like him. but he made a joke out of America.
He lies like hell, he's a coward and not fit in any way to be president. He took 10 years to make a desition.

I like Bush though. He has a terrible rep cause he is Republican and when he became president the twin towerrs got knocked down. But he handled it good. I dont think he could of done ti better.
he;s a bad speaker but he knows what he's talking about .

At 11/26/05 07:50 PM, TommyGun wrote: Bill Clinton. Remember the "factory of Mass destruction" that he bombed in Africa. Well, it turned out it was an asprin factory. Coincidentally, that happened the same day something called the Columbine shooting occured...

Bill Clinton was indeed an idiot, but I think Andrew Jackson was the worst.

At 12/14/07 01:50 AM, iiREDii wrote:

Coolidge hated asians! :p

Probably Harding, since he didn't know shit about politics. And Reagan, Carter, and Jackson.

you speak about US? XD

look on isreal...

The Teapot Dome scandal fellow. I can never remember his name...

bill clinton. what a fucker. (literally)

At 12/22/07 02:40 AM, SapphireLight wrote: The Teapot Dome scandal fellow. I can never remember his name...

Harding.

Hmmm, the worst president to me?
George Bush