Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Washington was one of the greatest men who ever lived. Saying one the of the reasons he was a bad president was his teeth is like saying FDR was bad because he was in a wheelchair.

Heh heh, type in "worst president" in google and you get a biography of George W. Bush.

But I remember seeing some sort of presidential ranking ladder on the internet. JFK was on top, followed by Eisenhower(sp?). At the bottom was good ol' George W., followed by his father :P

Where did you find that? DEMOCRATICBEDPARTNER.com?

I was joken about the teeth ga man. In reality, i would say Calvin Cooledge was the worst president, what did he do exacly? I dont even remember lol. Bush i think is raked somewhere in the 20's. Bill clinton is 36, i read it like in this book that ranked all the presidents. I think last was pat buchanon? I could be wrong about that

I liked Jefferson. Also Clinton should be in a dead last heat with Bush 2.

At 4/19/03 08:17 PM, Idiot-Finder wrote: What presidents do you think is the worst ones?

Jimmy Carter was the worst president in the country's history

At 7/26/04 03:17 PM, The_Enforcer wrote: Jimmy Carter was the worst president in the country's history

Jimmy was bad, but Georgie's worse.

At 7/26/04 03:33 PM, NotYouZ wrote: Jimmy was bad, but Georgie's worse.

Jimmy Carter couldn't free 80 hostages after 444 days.

"Georgie" liberated 26 million.

but no he sucks, right NotYouZ?

At 7/26/04 10:56 AM, Spookshow wrote: Also Clinton should be in a dead last heat with Bush 2.

Why?

POLK, no contest

At 7/26/04 05:36 PM, RugbyMacDaddy wrote:

At 7/26/04 10:56 AM, Spookshow wrote: Also Clinton should be in a dead last heat with Bush 2.

Why?

Both have:

Supported gun bans
Killed American soldiers (Bush at least fought back.)
Raped our military (Clinton went overboard.)

As these are important things to me I change my opinion to Clinton holds the record as worst president in my lifetime.

FDR was by far the worst president of the USA. He was a f***ing socialist, and did more than any other president to turn the US into a welfare state, which is what we left behind when we declared independence from europe. Because of that, we thrived immensely, so much more than europe, even now, but not so much, because of the switch to a more socialistic government.

2nd worst president: Lincoln. He was the direct cause for the Civil War, a war which had no need to happen, killing over half a million Americans, more than any other war in the US, even WWII. The war needn't have happened. States joined the union originally under the precept that they could later extricate themselves from it. The Civil War crushed such State's Rights. Although slavery is and was a horrible thing, that war was not the way to deal with it. Left in the state it was, the Slave based economy of the south would have quickly broken down due to industrialization.

One quick interjection:

When a war is Americans vs. Amercians, WHO do you think is going to have the highest casualty rate? Licoln was only one of the many "symptoms" of the civil war. Of course we lost alot of people during that so-called "pointless" war. Look at the after effects.

At 7/27/04 06:56 AM, Spookshow wrote: One quick interjection:

When a war is Americans vs. Amercians, WHO do you think is going to have the highest casualty rate? Licoln was only one of the many "symptoms" of the civil war. Of course we lost alot of people during that so-called "pointless" war. Look at the after effects.

The After-Effects: 600something thousand dead Americans. Loss of states rights.
Somewhat earlier end of slavery.

Not Worth It.
It would have been better if they had let them leave, but then support those who did smuggle slaves out of the South.

There were many other economic and civil rights after effects. Also just "letting" the South cecede from the Union would have DRASTICALLY weakened America. I don't think we'd be anywhere near the country we are today in terms of power.

At 7/27/04 07:04 AM, Spookshow wrote: There were many other economic and civil rights after effects. Also just "letting" the South cecede from the Union would have DRASTICALLY weakened America. I don't think we'd be anywhere near the country we are today in terms of power.

Weakened? Nah, the south were the ones dragging their feet. the north was industrialized, they could thrive on their own, much moreso than an agricultural only economy such as that of the south.
Powerwise, we'd have been fine. The useful resources for an industrialized society were primarily in the north. Anyway, as long as we had enough power to resist invasion, which we by that time did, I don't really see the point. We had plenty of power already, enough to defend the borders, and bitchslap anyone who messed with us, and by the 20th century, we would have been fully industrialized, with a thriving economy, with the south or without it.
Also, "letting" a state secede was originally what was to be allowed. The US is a Union of States, not one congruous country, at least that's how it was originally meant, and how it should be meant. Think EU, but less socialist.

What I am saying is people usually make power. Alot of what we are today comes from being all 50 states. I think militarily we would have been alot weaker. Also the north didn't have the land nor the climate to grow the abundance of food.

At 7/26/04 04:12 PM, The_Enforcer wrote:

At 7/26/04 03:33 PM, NotYouZ wrote: Jimmy was bad, but Georgie's worse.

Jimmy Carter couldn't free 80 hostages after 444 days.

--what should he have done? Give in to their demands, Like Reagan did? A military operation was bungled, and diplomacy was not working. Full scale war would give the Soviets a strong edge on America...

"Georgie" liberated 26 million.

--Yes. Those 26 million people are really hostages. Its really interesting how they are being held hostage--

--By themselves.

--I think that we should fire Bush so that we can liberate the western world from reckless pre-emptive warfare.

but no he sucks, right NotYouZ?

--You've exaggerated his accomplishment and ignored all of his flaws. Irrational.

At 7/27/04 06:54 AM, Einzelgaenger wrote: FDR was by far the worst president of the USA. He was a f***ing socialist, and did more than any other president to turn the US into a welfare state.

--I think you need to explain why socialism is bad, and why it doesn't work...

2nd worst president: Lincoln. He was the direct cause for the Civil War, a war which had no need to happen, killing over half a million Americans, more than any other war in the US, even WWII. The war needn't have happened. States joined the union originally under the precept that they could later extricate themselves from it. The Civil War crushed such State's Rights. Although slavery is and was a horrible thing, that war was not the way to deal with it. Left in the state it was, the Slave based economy of the south would have quickly broken down due to industrialization.

--Okay. I remind you that South Carolina left the union over Lincoln's election, on a platform of "lets stop expanding slavery"

--The Handling of Fort Sumter led to South Carolina shelling it. They started the war.

--Are you positively sure that the South would have broken down? Although the south is largely argicultural, think about what would have happened if the North had built factories anyway. Cheap Labor is not immigrants--it is slaves. This combination would make it impossible for free societies to compete, and eventually, Europe will intervene to end slavery--and probably lose that fight.

The Quashing of Slavery in the US, in the Civil War, may not have been necessary. Then again, had it not been put out, the USA would probably be abducting other non-whites and enslaving them to meet their labor demands, possibly Nazi style.

What I'm saying is that slavery would have corrupted the USA down to its core, and turned our resricted democracy into a oligarchy.

William Howard Taft is pretty bad. 'Resident' Bush is a total moron who lied about Iraq, gave money to the rich, and went on vacation way too much once he got into office, which his party rigged since they pretty much sleep with the people who own the voting machines.

Clinton made the white house fun. He gave money back to everyone and helped fix the economy after years of rape under republican control.

Clinton lied too.
Yeah fun... for him maybe... He raped the military...

At 7/28/04 02:41 AM, Spookshow wrote: Clinton lied too.

About what? Sex?

Sex...WMDs...Sex...WMDs...

hmm, which is the lesser evil? *coughwarasafirstresortisbullshitcough*

Yeah fun... for him maybe... He raped the military...

I'd rather rape the military than let them rape us.

I'm sure more people will enlist being that we keep cutting money from our schools. Yeah, that's a smart move.

I think some guys in military might like you to rape them from what I hear. I also believe you might like it yourself.

At 4/20/03 01:23 AM, -theFUNK- wrote: you know there never had to have been a civil war, because slavery was slowly being illegalized through diplomacy (laws passed to stop importation of slaves, mason-dixon line etc). However, lincoln wanted immediate freedom for slaves and started a war that created more hate for blacks than ever before, adding another 120 years to black oppression via racism. What could have been ended in 50 years now existed for 120 more. But of course lincoln won the civil war, and as we all know, the winners write the history books. ( I try to be as evil as possible)

Funk, you leave out one major fact. The confederates started the war. They attacked Fort Sumter.

I.... don't know what else to say...

and so begins the 'who started the civil war' debate

At 7/28/04 03:54 AM, TurkM1938 wrote: and so begins the 'who started the civil war' debate

It's not really up for debate...

They attacked a fort of ours... up until then nobody was fighting with eachother.

At 7/27/04 09:22 PM, BlueMax wrote:

At 7/27/04 06:54 AM, Einzelgaenger wrote: FDR was by far the worst president of the USA. He was a f***ing socialist, and did more than any other president to turn the US into a welfare state.

--I think you need to explain why socialism is bad, and why it doesn't work...

It's bad because it's theft. It steals from the producers, inventors, and other smart people, and gives to those who don't deserve it. I believe any wages I earn are mine, not some lazy bum who doesn't get a job.
I didn't say it doesn't work, just that it's nasty and inherently corrupt. It is theft, and whether it is sponsored by the government or not matters not.

At 7/28/04 03:08 AM, Gooie wrote: About what? Sex?

Sex...WMDs...Sex...WMDs...

Yep. Both

hmm, which is the lesser evil? *coughwarasafirstresortisbullshitcough*

First resort? How MANY UN resolutions were there?

::

I'd rather rape the military than let them rape us.

I'm sure more people will enlist being that we keep cutting money from our schools. Yeah, that's a smart move.

All I am saying is don't call it a balanced budget when you biggest line item gets the same funding as everything else. Also he protected people like Reno.