Historians rank top Presidents on Leadership

#159
#159
This is the only bottom five you need....
1.) Woodrow Wilson.... no one will ever, I mean ever, be as awful as him!
2.) Andrew Johnson... what an idiot!
3.) LBJ! ........... grrr.... I hate him with a passion!
4.) Harry S. Truman........... waste of humanity!
5.) Jimmy Carter.... another waste of humanity!
 
#161
#161
OrangeEmpire said:
This is the only bottom five you need....
1.) Woodrow Wilson.... no one will ever, I mean ever, be as awful as him!
2.) Andrew Johnson... what an idiot!
3.) LBJ! ........... grrr.... I hate him with a passion!
4.) Harry S. Truman........... waste of humanity!
5.) Jimmy Carter.... another waste of humanity!
Click to expand...

That list is hard to argue with, do you like Clinton and FDR to be in the top ten.

What are your top criticisms of Truman??
 
#162
#162
OrangeEmpire said:
This is the only bottom five you need....
1.) Woodrow Wilson.... no one will ever, I mean ever, be as awful as him!
2.) Andrew Johnson... what an idiot!
3.) LBJ! ........... grrr.... I hate him with a passion!
4.) Harry S. Truman........... waste of humanity!
5.) Jimmy Carter.... another waste of humanity!
Click to expand...
I disagree on Truman.

By the time Lil' Hussein Obama is done. He will stand alone at the top of the worst Presidents list.
 
#163
#163
oklavol said:
Yes you said it twice, and it still isn't true. There's not any evidence to support that conclusion. But that's never stopped your commentary before.

You might want to read this article, if this subject interests you:A Book Asserts Reagan Slowed Hostage Release - New York Times
Click to expand...


this article is about a book written by a former carter official. i wouldn't expect him to tell the truth. conspiracy theories are rarely true.
 
#164
#164
therealUT said:
Washington was great, militarily, in his ability to pull certain personalities together through the Revolution. As POTUS, I do not recall Washington doing anything that would either be considered great or disastrous.
Click to expand...

Washington's handling of the Whiskey Rebellion and the crafting of Jay's Treaty with Great Britain are two very important events of his presidency that are often overlooked.
 
#165
#165
SavageOrangeJug said:
I disagree on Truman.

By the time Lil' Hussein Obama is done. He will stand alone at the top of the worst Presidents list.
Click to expand...

nailed_it_2.gif.xs.jpg


Let's hope Obama can't do the same amount of
damage that Carter did in his four years.

And I will always say that FDR deserves top five
worst status.

1. FDR did what Obama and company are planning
and fell on his face time after time, even his own
people weren't agreeing with him on down the road.

2. FDR's way out of the depression was the war
and in the end he could have negotiated a far
better peace for the USA.

yalta33.jpg


fdrsaud.jpg


Here is an oldie but goodie that OE would probably
appreciate;

BE052711.jpg


Truman shaking hands with FDR's point man and
main adviser at Yalta, Alger Hiss presiding over the
UN.

At least Truman dismissed Frank Marshall, Harry's
dismissal of Douglas MacArthur wasn't an extremely
popular move though.

The first time I ever rode a train was from Nashville
to Murfreesboro to listen to the general speak just
after he was fired by Truman.

Here is the text of essentially the same
speech he gave there.
 
Last edited:
#166
#166
This is probably impossible for you to fathom, but of the Democratic Presidents some have been good and some have been bad, and the same is true of the Republican Presidents. You can't tell based simply on party.
 
#167
#167
oklavol said:
Yes you said it twice, and it still isn't true. There's not any evidence to support that conclusion. But that's never stopped your commentary before.

You might want to read this article, if this subject interests you:A Book Asserts Reagan Slowed Hostage Release - New York Times
Click to expand...

If Carter had done the right thing to begin with there would have been no American hostages in Iran!!!!

In many cases when it comes to politics, it takes too long of a while for the truth to come out!!

But few in the West were aware of the genocide. While Ukrainians starved to death, Moscow dumped millions of tons of cheap grain on Western markets. When Western journalists like the Welsh reporter Gareth Jones, stationed in the USSR in the 1930s, secretly traveled to Ukraine, uncovering information about the decimation of entire rural towns and villages, pro-Soviet apologists like Walter Duranty of the New York Times published fabricated stories of well-fed peasants in an attempt to suppress the truth.
Click to expand...

More on Duranty and the New York Times.


One of the journalist who would put to practice the
Soviet policy of famine denial was Walter Duranty,
the New York Times Moscow correspondent at the time.

Jagiellonian University historian Jan Jacek Bruski:


'Duranty knew the truth about the extent of the famine
in Ukraine, we know that from his private correspondence.

He even estimated the number of victims at 10 million
people. And still he hasn't said a word about this but
actively supported the Soviet policy of famine denial.

We don't know what Duranty's motivation was. He might
have been blackmailed or offered money for covering
the Soviet authorities. Three years ago, Ukrainian
organizations wanted to take the Pullitzer prize back
from Duranty, but they didn't succeed.'
---------------

According to Duranty, whose credibility is questionable,
the New York Times had an agreement with the Stalin
government that his official dispatches would always
reflect the opinion of the Soviet government. He related
this to a U.S. diplomat stationed in Berlin in 1931 by
the name of A. W. Kliefoth. Kliefoth’s memo is in the
National Archives in Washington, D.C., document
861.5017 in the USSR/268, collection number T1249 in
the Records of the Department of State.

All coverage of the Soviet Union was distorted by this policy. The New York Timesshould be encouraged to disclose this agreement. Where are the monuments and museums dedicated to the Ukrainian Famine?
Click to expand...

Dietrich, author of The Morgenthau Plan, Soviet Influence on American Postwar Policy.

(Morgenthau was FDR's secretary of the treasury, the FDR administration, instead of being truthful about the failures of Soviet collectivism, was more interested in forming farming cooperatives in America.

General Frank Marshall, FDR's favorite general, had received undeserved promotions engineered by FDR, despite being judged as 'incompetent' earlier by military authorities, and along with Alger Hiss was big in the FDR's agriculture program.)

The disbelief in the West that a famine in 1929-32 that
killed an estimated 10 million people was real in Ukraine
was led by a New York Times reporter named Walter Duranty, a dupe, and perhaps a spy, for Stalin.

The New York Times published a running series of reports by Duranty who received the Pulitzer Prize for his false reporting in which he denied any problems in Ukraine.

Although crops failed somewhat that year the food situation was nowhere near famine conditions. The famine was man-made, a part of a huge and bloody purge of Russia by Stalin to impose communism.

Stalin sent his troops into Ukraine and seized all of the food leaving the people to starve. To the New York Times, one of the chief supporters of Stalin and communism, Stalin was a hero.
Click to expand...

The truth can be red today in Robert Conquest's riveting
book "Harvest of Sorrow," published in 1986.

The Harvest of Sorrow is the first full history of one of the most horrendous human tragedies of the 20th century.

Between 1929 and 1932 the Soviet Communist Party struck a double blow at the Russian peasantry: dekulakization, the dispossession and deportation of millions of peasant families, and collectivization, the abolition of private ownership of land and the concentration of the remaining peasants in party-controlled "collective" farms.

This was followed in 1932-33 by a "terror-famine," inflicted by the State on the collectivized peasants of the Ukraine and certain other areas by setting impossibly high grain quotas, removing every other source of food, and preventing help from outside--even from other areas of the Soviet Union--from reaching the starving populace.

The death toll resulting from the actions described in this book was an estimated 14.5 million--more than the total number of deaths for all countries in World War I.
Click to expand...

harvest.jpg


Stalin was the master mass killer of all times. Yet today
we have completely forgiven Stalin and Russia. Why not
forgive other mass killers like Hitler and Pol Pot?

Want fact that is really enlightening as to what the UN is all about???

For thirty five years, the UN denied membership to the Cambodian government that was benevolently ruled by Prince Sihanook, as soon as Pol Pot staged his bloody coup and program of genocide and colectivism, the UN accepted Cambodia with open arms.


(This last week one share of NY Times stock sold for less that the price of their Sunday edition, they can't be out of business soon enough to suit me.)

Due to the propaganda put out by the likes of the N Y Times, the American people are totally clueless about what is really going on in much of world outside our borders.

A perfect example was the N Y Times Yugoslavian correspondent who had been writing for the Times for over thirty years, and when he refused to support the false impression of what was going on in the Balkans in the 1990s, based on half truths and outright lies, the Times fired him.
 
#168
#168
gsvol said:
That list is hard to argue with, do you like Clinton and FDR to be in the top ten.

What are your top criticisms of Truman??
Click to expand...

When I was younger and did not know any better I despised FDR and Bubba. Now that I am older, 28, I see the good that FDR did for the country and I would take Bubba as emporer if he had a conservative congress to watch out for him.

Truman is a complete and utter dirt bag!

Truman = Obama and Dewey = McCain. It is scary how much history repeats itself.
 
#169
#169
oklavol said:
This is probably impossible for you to fathom, but of the Democratic Presidents some have been good and some have been bad, and the same is true of the Republican Presidents. You can't tell based simply on party.
Click to expand...

Correct, we have only had 3 good presidents.
 
#170
#170
oklavol said:
This is probably impossible for you to fathom, but of the Democratic Presidents some have been good and some have been bad, and the same is true of the Republican Presidents. You can't tell based simply on party.
Click to expand...

That may be somewhat true.

Who do you consider the best American democrat president of the twentieth century??
 
#172
#172
#173
#173
OrangeEmpire said:
When I was younger and did not know any better I despised FDR and Bubba. Now that I am older, 28, I see the good that FDR did for the country and I would take Bubba as emporer if he had a conservative congress to watch out for him.

Truman is a complete and utter dirt bag!

Truman = Obama and Dewey = McCain. It is scary how much history repeats itself.
Click to expand...

I keep asking, for what reasons do you call Truman a dirtbag?? (not that I especially disagree.)

What specifically good did FDR do for the country, iyo??

Bubba would accept the position of emperor in a heartbeat. I can' say much for your judge of character, you are still young, you'll probably grow out of the stage you are in, hopefully sooner than later.

I got a laugh out of; "Truman = Obama and Dewey = McCain."

Man do you ever have those nailed, let me add, "all liberally seasoned with generous portions of Wendell Wilkie."
 
#174
#174
gsvol said:
I keep asking, for what reasons do you call Truman a dirtbag?? (not that I especially disagree.)

What specifically good did FDR do for the country, iyo??

Bubba would accept the position of emperor in a heartbeat. I can' say much for your judge of character, you are still young, you'll probably grow out of the stage you are in, hopefully sooner than later.

I got a laugh out of; "Truman = Obama and Dewey = McCain."

Man do you ever have those nailed, let me add, "all liberally seasoned with generous portions of Wendell Wilkie."
Click to expand...

1.) Although you will never admit it, he provided hope to a country in turmoil.

2.) I would take Bubba over W, Gore, Kerry, Obama and McCain in a heart beat.
 
#175
#175
OrangeEmpire said:
1.) Although you will never admit it, he provided hope to a country in turmoil.

2.) I would take Bubba over W, Gore, Kerry, Obama and McCain in a heart beat.
Click to expand...

as long as Bubba had Republican Majorities in both houses of Congress, I'll come close to agreeing with you on your 2nd point. Clinton was poised to do some real damage until the dems lost both houses in 94.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top