For me all around best is Truman and the all around worst is Clinton

best, FDR, he was a cripple wasn't he and was elected 5 times?
Worst, Clinton, he got impeached and did nothing about terrorism and left his wife in charge

When you think that almost all Presidents contributed at least *something* to the US - even if they did get impeached at some stage or preferred blowjobs - it's hard to wipe them totally off.

To put it another way - most of them did a lot more than most of us ever will do :winkwink:

Tho... still waiting.. the only exception so far seems to be Young George - damned if I can see even one thing he has done to benefit the US.

Many will say September 11, 2001 was the first attack on the US The answer as far as the United State is concerned is 1979, 22 years prior to September 2001, with the following

attacks on us:
Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979;
Beirut, Lebanon Embassy 1983;
Beirut, Lebanon Marine Barracks 1983;
Lockerbie, Scotland Pan-Am flight to New York 1988;
First New York World Trade Center attack 1993;
Dhahran, Saudi Arabia Khobar Towers Military complex 1996;
Nairobi, Kenya US Embassy 1998;
Dares Salaam, Tanzania US Embassy 1998;
Aden, Yemen USS Cole 2000;
New York World Trade Center 2001;
Pentagon 2001.

(Note that during the period from 1981 to 2001 there were 7,581 terrorist attacks worldwide).

GW was the first President to fight back

Sure.. got a point Vendzilla, tho since 9/11 was kinda thrust onto Bush's watch - there was little choice but to do *something*, and.. in the end, that was one massive fuckup in many ways - including losing most international support he could have got and swelling Al Queda recruitment X times over - and following that up with the Iran stuff which had nothing to do with 9/11. Bottom line - the US has paid a price already for that - and little doubts will pay a far higher future price, yet unknown.

During this time domestic issues appear to have been ignored - everything from the economic, trade, education blah - and a mounting national debt, which is going to take a long time to get under control by whoever has the next challenge of govt.

Only my :2 cents: but doubt it's "difficult" to go to war - the harder part is controlling it and being effective - and coming out the other end with a result. Wars are not easy to control - and unless there is a clean cut objective - there is rarely any "winner". Sure, George would like to make that his "success story", but doubt that will happen. Other than that, it's very hard to see exactly what benefit he has given to the US.

Sorry.. typo.. should read:

"and following that up with the Iraq stuff"

Freudian slip - tho Iran is not far away :winkwink:

First one on the list, Iran, I was there, off the coast in a submarine, ready to blow the shit out of any boat coming our way. We should have attacked then! Tactical nukes come to mind! Hell Clinton attacked Iraq the same day his impeachment came down, go figure! Why didn't we attack, Reagon was busy with the USSR, remember them?
People that want to think that we would be better off without Bush are just what the Al-Queda wants, because if we all got behind Bush, we wouldn't have to check our toothpaste at the airport, any country containing terrorist would be glowing!
Is Bush a perfect President? no! But he's what we got now and without support, the presidency doesn't work, the government doesn't work, terrorist win!
Me? I liked it better when I could use a carry-on at the airport.

they can turn coal into oil, stop our dependance on foreign oil, then we can stop all the fighting, because they would have nothing to barter with!!
http://www.billingsgazette.com/newde...5-coal-oil.inc

But he was not a "master of slyness", if that's a quality you want to admire. He was cold busted. The only reason he never faced charges was the pardon he received from his self-appointed succesor.

The day any nuclear weapons are launched is the day the "anti" of everything raises and presents far more danger than anyone prob could ever envisage. The implications of that extend beyond "protecting the US". Sure, there was a cold war going on with Reagan and whatever Clinton's role was - was not actually bothering about them - more the current Admin. Both Reagan and Clinton had something to offer.


Dunno.. just get the feeling Bush is exactly what Al Queda wants :-) Can you think of any "terrorist group" that has ever been defeated by conventional forces? Don't think there ever has been. Who knows the inside ops of Al Queda, but sure they are all over the globe, whether active or not. It's a "belief" - banging drums never changed beliefs. Same with any "like minded" group, - IRA, ETA, whoever.

From past history it's also a myth that any country can be protected from extremist action or nutcases. No matter how many airport searches or other cutting down of "privacy rights" - if someone or group does want to cause havoc, - sure as hell they will. Can think immediately of one method which does not even involve any explosion, cause attention or require missiles/bombs - but the effect is prob nearing the devastation of nuclear and would last for years. (Tho doubt even Al Queda would want to go that path!) Nothing can protect against idiotic or deviant conduct and changing a way of life to protect against their potential action is playing into exactly what they wanted in the first instance.

There are folks with lots of experience at handling "terrorism" and dealing with terrorists - both in practical terms and with the background mentality. Generally they all agree, having went thru the process themselves, that direct force does not work - it takes *far* more than that to have an effect and show some "success" - tho appears to take years and even decades before that shows thru.

Mmmm.. It's hard to say Bush is relevant because of Al Queda - it's not exactly an achievement - there is no winner and prob never will be even after his term has long expired. In many ways, the "war on terror" is a side issue and distraction to the actual progress/functions of govt - the more he keeps being "distracted" and folks are even discussing it and showing concern, the other side is winning. Tho sure - it's a job he had to take on - and *do something*.

Don't forget ethanol :winkwink: :thumbsup

Doubt oil exporting countries will even bother about "bartering" - there are enough nations wanting more oil to keep them in biz till the supply extinguishes. Far better to initiate alternative an energy program and save billions on trade balances in the process - and at a reduced "pump price". If it has not start already - there sure as hell is going to be an inflation rate increase coming up shortly and mainly due to oil consumption.

it's true, we need a better plan, this one isn't working, we need to get extreme, nukes aren't the answer.
we need to attack them at a religous level, like the urban legend of general Black Jack Pershing
One important thing to remember is that Muslims detest pork because they believe pigs are filthy animals. Some of them simply refuse to eat it, while others won't even touch pigs at all, nor any of their by-products. To them, eating or touching a pig, its meat, its blood, etc., is to be instantly barred from paradise and doomed to hell.

Just before World War I, there were a number of terrorist attacks against the United States and it's interests by, you guessed it, Muslim extremists.

So General Pershing captured 50 of the terrorists and had them tied to posts execution style. He then had his men bring in two pigs and slaughter them in front of the, now horrified, terrorists.

The soldiers then soaked their bullets in pigs blood, and proceeded to execute 49 of the terrorists by firing squad.

The soldiers then dug a big hole, dumped in the terrorist's bodies and covered them in pig blood, entrails, etc.

They let the 50th man go. And for about the next 42 years, there was not a single attack by a muslim fanatic anywhere in the world.

this is a legend not founded in fact, but no one seems to be able to prove it any other way, but , I believe it's worth a try

He got caught on this one issue... how many thousands upon thousands of other crimes do you think he got away with. =) That is why he's one sly mother fucker, and one of the greatest Americans to ever live.

Best 5 (not in any order):
Washington
Jefferson
Lincoln
Teddy Roosevelt
Reagan

Worst 5:
Pierce
Buchanan
Andrew Johnson
Lyndon Johnson
Carter

Very distinguished company for Ronald Reagan. I'm sure he'd be proud...

I agree that the time he was in office was one of the best.

Yeah, I think he did a lot of pretty amazing things.
Washington was probably the best, though. If you ever read in detail about his presidency, he made A LOT of incredible moves, however unpopular.

If I were to expand my lists to 6? I'd probably have to add Harding as one of the worst (Tyler wasn't that great either, really)... and despite all the venom being spewed about him, I think George Jr will probably go down in history as one of the best. Let's not forget that Lincoln had a lot of dissenters and presided over a divided nation during troubled times.

Ben Franklin wasn't a President.

damn liars :mad: :

Seems like you are in that minority .... :)

Ronald McDonald was the best president you guys ever had, theres never been a bad one though so I can't tell you the worse

bush is great for shutting down sadam

I don't know enough about them