Silverbackman, I agree Lincoln was a tyrant. Luckily for the country he was a good tyrant. (Pericles was another good tyrant.) Can a good tyrant be a good president? I'm not sure. (Jeff Davis and Rosa Parks would probably have different answers)
FDR also brought us most of the way out of the depression with the 100 days and the New Deal, improved our relations with Latin America, helped end colonial policies with the atlantic charter and helped start the united nations. Lincoln was by far our best president not only because of how he dealt with the civil war, but also with the homestead act which encouraged practical westward expansion, passed a law to expand railroads to the pacific and passed a law to give land in each state to hold higher education institutions, but whatever you are entitled to your opinion i guess.
He was good enough not to fuck up this country, thankfully. But he is still a huge tyrant as far as civil rights goes. That is why you have folks like Bush calling the constitution a "peice of paper" and torturing Iraqi prisoners. Lincoln did the same thing towards Confederates but even WORSE. Luckily, Lincoln wasn't such a big disaster for the country because he at least brought an end to slavery. To date, Bush hasn't done shite! FDR did NOT bring us out of the Great Depression. This is one of the greatest myths that has been going around. The Federal Reserve got us into the depression, in reality both Hoover and FDR only worsened the depression. Read this article; http://econ161.berkeley.edu/TCEH/Slouch_Crash14.html
i still have to stand by andrew jackson as the worst prez in history. trying to relocate a whole race of people far outweighs the depression
FDR most definitely relocated a whole race. Remember German internment, Italian internment, and in highest number Japanese internment? And let's not forget the fact that he did nothing to prevent Pearl Harbor when he had prior knowledge. That kinda sounds similar to our own president today and 9/11!
I voted for George Walker Bush but, i thought Lyndon Baines Johnson was pretty bad as well..if not worse..
I was alive and remember 8 of those that were listed but I can easily say, hands down, the worst president the us has EVER had is gw bush LBJ worse? He did a lot for civil rights. Bush did alot for the other bush's and his close friends.
Johnson was a pretty good president actually, and did alot for civil rights, Vietnam destroyed his reputation though, which is really a shame cause he did alot of good.
I wholehearted agree. LBJ was a civil rights pioneer. Vietnam was the reason he didn't run for reelection. He couldn't find a graceful way out of the war to save face for our country. He was very troubled by the loss of American lives there.
Carter tanked the US economy in the '70's. Like Reagan said in the '80 debuts, "Are you better off now than you where 4 years ago?" Reagan said the same thing 4 years later and got re-elected. I'm suprised more people didn't vote LBJ, since we're still paying for his social engineering crap 40 years later.
This is utterly absurd. Economic growth indices -- GDP, jobs, revenues -- were all positive when Carter left office. All plunged after Reagan policies took effect. Reagan didn't cure inflation, the main economic problem during the Carter years. Carter's Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker tried when he raised interest rates. That's the opposite of what Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan did to keep inflation low. Carter's policies and people fought inflation, but maintained real growth. On the other hand, Reagan's policies helped cause the worst recession since the Great Depression: two bleak years with nearly double-digit unemployment! Reaganomics failed in less than a year, and it took an entire second year for the economy to recover from the failure. Carter didn't cause the inflation problem, but his tough policies and smart personnel solved it. Unfortunately for Carter, it took too long for the good results to kick in. Not only didn't Reagan help whip inflation, he actually opposed the Volcker policies!
but he started the vietnam war...ironically nixon is the one that ended it! ps LOL@ this thread whipping dubya.
You need to check your facts son. Johnson DID NOT start the vietnam war. Our actions in Vietnam began in 1959. Dwight D. Eisenhower was president at that time. The troops we had on the ground from then until 1965 were called 'advisors'. The Kennedy administration at least (pressured by the media) did away with calling them advisors and called them what they were, warriors. Nixon was a fucking crock. He stopped the Vietnam war because of too much pressure from the people to do so. Otherwise, he would never have stopped it.
Ignoring our historical differences, It still seems as though the presidents with the best intensions didn’t necessarily make the best presidents.
LBJ still did alot of good at home though, and he didn't start it, he just went his way with trying to solve a conflict that had been happening for years. The difference here though between him and say Nixon or Bush is when people were chanting "Hey! hey! LBJ! How many kids you kill today!" it really disturbed and got to him, and then destroyed his career.
I think they all have good intensions (Bush aside) it's just what their interpetation of 'good intensions' is that makes the difference.
What disturbed him, and Nixon, was that the hippy movement had gotten so organized and had established such momentum, they couldn't be ignored. Nixon still tried to win the war before pulling out. He micromanaged too much. Field commanders couldn't execute a mission without checking with the white house first. He was so afraid of his legecy. Funny it wasn't the vietnam war that marked his legacy so much after all.