Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I posted this on another "Are Republicans that different?", but I felt that it merited its own thread:
The Murray-Blessing 1982 survey interviewed both liberal and conservative PHD historians on presidents. I'll only comment on the political ideologies of presidents after 1900, to avoid controversy.
Liberal:
1. Lincoln
2. FDR [liberal]
3. Washington
4. Jefferson
5. Teddy Roosevelt [liberal]
6. Wilson [liberal]
7. Jackson
8. Truman [liberal]
9. LBJ [liberal]
10. Adams
Conservative:
1. Lincoln
2. Washington
3. FDR [liberal]
4. Jefferson
5. Teddy Roosevelt [liberal]
6. Jackson
7. Truman [liberal]
8. Wilson [liberal]
9. Eisenhower [moderate-conservative]
10. Adams
Then, they were asked to list their bottom seven.
Liberal:
30. Coolidge [conservative]
31. Pierce [<1900, but an ardent states' rights southerner...]
32. Buchanan [<1900, but an ardent states' rights southerner...]
33. Andrew Johnson [<1900, but an ardent states' rights southerner...]
34. Grant
35. Nixon [conservative]
36. Harding [conservative]
Conservative:
30. Carter [liberal]
31. Nixon [conservative]
32. Peirce [<1900, but an ardent states' rights southerner...]
33. Andrew Johnson [<1900, but an ardent states' rights southerner...]
34. Buchanan [<1900, but an ardent states' rights southerner...]
35. Grant
36. Harding [conservative]
Probably the best way to be sure you end up a highly rated President is to engage our country in a world war. Hopefully, future Presidents resist that temptation.
Probably the best way to be sure you end up a highly rated President is to engage our country in a world war. Hopefully, future Presidents resist that temptation.
Not necessarily. FDR didn't ask for WW2; Woodrow Wilson's reputation was probably hurt by it.
Yes he did. He did his best to provoke an attack on both fronts and he got one.
Yep, like Lincoln, he managed to provoke the other side into firing first. Anyone who rates that aristocrat, who is the individual most responsible for tearing asunder our Constitution, highly is an ass.
What this shows is the astounding level of mind control the masses are under, irrespective of political affiliation, and the complete cluelessness on both sides to that harsh reality.
Given the head to head confrontation of the so-called left and right ideologies ... and the rejection from both sides when presented with the idea that both parties are just two sides of the same coin, and no different except for the illusion of differences ... this list of best and worst presidents shows the truth.
Not only do both sides list the same names ... but almost in the same order, from best to worst. And even more shocking is how some of the very worst presidents are considered the best by both sides. Amazing doesn't describe this adequately.
George Washington's popularity is understandable due to his leadership in the revolutionary war. But Lincoln, Wilson and FDR ? My God, George Orwell was indeed an optimist. Let's take a closer look at just those three ...
Lincoln - he's a mixed bag, as I do think old Abe loved the country and was a decent man with decent ideals and some beneficial contributions, however, they cannot override the harm imposed by Lincoln's antithetical behavior toward the constitution and the principles of our founding fathers. Lincoln's choice to use military force against his own people to force federal authority over the southern states, in nothing less than the same brand of despotism used against the colonies by King George. Lincoln's actions here basically said to the South ... you may have joined the union of your own free will, but you may not un-join it, and we would rather annihilate you, and destroy you as to allow that to happen, and to hell with the words and sentiments of Thomas Jefferson that government is of the people and subject to their consent. His action directly pitted brother against brother .. neighbor against neighbor, and therefore is owed no reverence suggesting greatness. Lincoln published the book on federal tyranny, setting the precedence for all future forms of such tyranny that was to come later. He literally placed the entire country under "Marshal Law", which is still in effect today, even though few understand this reality.
Wilson - pure traitor, who was instrumental in allowing the country to be captured by foreign enemies of the Republic ... allowing these European "House of Rothschild" gangster bankers to capture the nation without firing a shot. This facilitated the retaking of the United States by those to whom we thought we had won our independence.
FDR - took what Wilson established, and completed the takeover, while restructuring the country into a socialist-fascist corporate empire, leaving in place only the trappings and illusions of an elected government.
They say that history is written by the victors ... and that is true in the case of the death of the United States of America, which was transformed into a wholly owned subsidiary of the banking elitists, under the new corporate identity ... the UNITED STATES inc.
Oh hey, we have a confederate sympathizer with us today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
Lincoln - he's a mixed bag, as I do think old Abe loved the country and was a decent man with decent ideals and some beneficial contributions, however, they cannot override the harm imposed by Lincoln's antithetical behavior toward the constitution and the principles of our founding fathers.
The "principles of our founding fathers"? Why are right wingers so obsessed with this nonsensical line of rhetoric?
Quote:
Lincoln's choice to use military force against his own people to force federal authority over the southern states, in nothing less than the same brand of despotism used against the colonies by King George.
Wrong. The south seceded from the Union after losing a lawfully held election, and fired the first shots of the War.
Quote:
Lincoln's actions here basically said to the South ... you may have joined the union of your own free will, but you may not un-join it, and we would rather annihilate you, and destroy you as to allow that to happen, and to hell with the words and sentiments of Thomas Jefferson that government is of the people and subject to their consent. His action directly pitted brother against brother .. neighbor against neighbor, and therefore is owed no reverence suggesting greatness. Lincoln published the book on federal tyranny, setting the precedence for all future forms of such tyranny that was to come later. He literally placed the entire country under "Marshal Law", which is still in effect today, even though few understand this reality.
It's difficult to feel sorry for the southern slavocrats when their declarations of secession specifically state slavery as "divine law" and "the greatest material interest in the world".
Quote:
Wilson - pure traitor, who was instrumental in allowing the country to be captured by foreign enemies of the Republic ... allowing these European "House of Rothschild" gangster bankers to capture the nation without firing a shot. This facilitated the retaking of the United States by those to whom we thought we had won our independence.
Wilson was also a racist and heavily restricted civil liberties during the first world war on ridiculous pretenses. But he also helped pass the 19th amendment and followed a far more ethical foreign policy than his predecessors.
Quote:
FDR - took what Wilson established, and completed the takeover, while restructuring the country into a socialist-fascist corporate empire, leaving in place only the trappings and illusions of an elected government.
"Socialist-fascist"? The two are ideological opposites.
Quote:
They say that history is written by the victors ... and that is true in the case of the death of the United States of America, which was transformed into a wholly owned subsidiary of the banking elitists, under the new corporate identity ... the UNITED STATES inc.
I'm not even necessarily defending the listed presidents. I'm simply pointing out that even conservative historians rank liberal presidents far more favorably than their conservative counterparts. From 1900 onwards, of the conservatives only Reagan (whose repute is highly undeserved) and Eisenhower (if you count him as a conservative) are rated favorably in pi-partisan surveys. Meanwhile, both Roosevelts, Truman, Wilson, Clinton, Kennedy and LBJ are all considered to be among the greatest US presidents.
Meanwhile, both Roosevelts, Truman, Wilson, Clinton, Kennedy and LBJ are all considered to be among the greatest US presidents.
It's a question of what your values are. If you are a power-luster or an admirer of the same (regardless of your party label), those would be your favorites. But if you are an anti-war liberal or a paleoconservative or a libertarian, you may have all the same information but your choices would be diametrically opposed.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
