who was the greatest american president

[JJM]

Who was the greatest American President?

He stole he nomination from Clinton.

[JJM]

Why isn't Bill Clinton on the list?..............

No Wilson either. I don't get how Polk, a man who basically ran on a campaign of aggressive imperialism, and Harrison, a man who did virtually nothing of note, beat both of these more popular presidents.

W.H. Harrison was put on there as a joke and Polk is considered the be the greatest by some. I don't like Polk one bit but some others do. I would like to know why Polk is considered so great by some.

[comic boy]

Why isn't Bill Clinton on the list?..............

No Wilson either. I don't get how Polk, a man who basically ran on a campaign of aggressive imperialism, and Harrison, a man who did virtually nothing of note, beat both of these more popular presidents.

W.H. Harrison was put on there as a joke and Polk is considered the be the greatest by some. I don't like Polk one bit but some others do. I would like to know why Polk is considered so great by some.

Because he made the world a safer place

[Frigidus]

Why isn't Bill Clinton on the list?..............

No Wilson either. I don't get how Polk, a man who basically ran on a campaign of aggressive imperialism, and Harrison, a man who did virtually nothing of note, beat both of these more popular presidents.

W.H. Harrison was put on there as a joke and Polk is considered the be the greatest by some. I don't like Polk one bit but some others do. I would like to know why Polk is considered so great by some.

Because he made the world a safer place

The only reason I can imagine anyone picking Polk is because, through the Mexican-American war, we got a bunch of territory. The ends hardly justify the means in my opinion.

[JJM]

How come Obama isn't an option?

Because obama is a crook.

I think Jim is trying to say "Because Obama hasn't fulfilled a full term of office yet, and so couldn't be in the poll"

Right Jimmy boy?

Nope. I'm saying he's a crook.

Still waiting for you to explain how Bush has made the World safer, are you having problems understanding the question, surely even the red neck schools in North Dakota teach English ?

I already told you he got rid of Saddam Huessain and also isn't red neck a slaying term for a southerner. North Dakota is located along the Canadian border.

[JJM]

Why isn't Bill Clinton on the list?..............

There are people who think he was a great president but I don't think that very many would think of him as the best.

[JJM]

How come Obama isn't an option?

Because obama is a crook.

I think Jim is trying to say "Because Obama hasn't fulfilled a full term of office yet, and so couldn't be in the poll"

Right Jimmy boy?

Nope. I'm saying he's a crook.

Although I agree that Obama should certainly not be an option for Skittles reason, JJM's excuse makes him as much of a "crook" as Obama. He complains that Obama sleaze'd his opponent out of a local election, but then takes out an option that a lot of people (homers all) would have voted for? The irony is delicious.

Obama stole the nomination from Clinton. He took his name off the ballot in Michigan so he should not have gotten any of Michigan's delagates.

[Frigidus]

Because obama is a crook.

I think Jim is trying to say "Because Obama hasn't fulfilled a full term of office yet, and so couldn't be in the poll"

Right Jimmy boy?

Nope. I'm saying he's a crook.

Although I agree that Obama should certainly not be an option for Skittles reason, JJM's excuse makes him as much of a "crook" as Obama. He complains that Obama sleaze'd his opponent out of a local election, but then takes out an option that a lot of people (homers all) would have voted for? The irony is delicious.

Obama stole the nomination from Clinton. He took his name off the ballot in Michigan so he should not have gotten any of Michigan's delagates.

Except that Michigan (and Florida as well, if I remember correctly) broke protocol by moving their nomination up the schedule. Wasn't Clinton the only one on the ballot? Admittedly, I think the current system is tremendously stupid (As go Iowa and New Hampshire so go the nation? Sure.), but those still weren't real elections.

[comic boy]

Dim Jim

Firstly you have been told several times that getting rid of Saddam DID NOT make the world safer, care to explain why you think it did ? Secondly redneck is not a term reserved only for Southerners, dont they teach you anything that is factual in your red neck North Dakota 'school '

[Gillipig]

Dim Jim

Firstly you have been told several times that getting rid of Saddam DID NOT make the world safer, care to explain why you think it did ? Secondly redneck is not a term reserved only for Southerners, dont they teach you anything that is factual in your red neck North Dakota 'school '

Wasn't Jesus the first american president ? I don't know if he was the first or the second but I think he is the best american presidents like ever !
I'm american and proud of it

[JJM]

Dim Jim

Firstly you have been told several times that getting rid of Saddam DID NOT make the world safer, care to explain why you think it did ? Secondly redneck is not a term reserved only for Southerners, dont they teach you anything that is factual in your red neck North Dakota 'school '

If you don't think that saddam Hussein was very cruel then I don't know what you are thinking.

[Gillipig]

Dim Jim

Firstly you have been told several times that getting rid of Saddam DID NOT make the world safer, care to explain why you think it did ? Secondly redneck is not a term reserved only for Southerners, dont they teach you anything that is factual in your red neck North Dakota 'school '

If you don't think that saddam Hussein was very cruel then I don't know what you are thinking.

You're the one not thinking, he didn't say anything about that saddam wasn't cruel! he said that the world didn't get safer without him, and I agree with him on that! Removing Kim Jong-il from power in North korea could be wrong if it lead to equal instability in that region as it did to remove Saddam from power in Iraq! The world isn't more safe now than it was 10 years ago!!

[comic boy]

Dim Jim

Firstly you have been told several times that getting rid of Saddam DID NOT make the world safer, care to explain why you think it did ? Secondly redneck is not a term reserved only for Southerners, dont they teach you anything that is factual in your red neck North Dakota 'school '

If you don't think that saddam Hussein was very cruel then I don't know what you are thinking.

You simply dont understand do you........gonna be a tough life for you kid

[GabonX]

Removing Saddam Hussein made the world safer, ONLY if we act to engage Iran as well. The job is only half done.

Regardless, removing him from power was the only acceptable action for the world community to take. Crimes against humanity have no statute of limitations and people like Hussein NEED to be punished. There can not be a perception that such conduct is acceptable, or worse, profitable...

Back on topic:

[Frigidus]

Removing Saddam Hussein made the world safer, ONLY if we act to engage Iran as well. The job is only half done.

Regardless, removing him from power was the only acceptable action for the world community to take. Crimes against humanity have no statute of limitations and people like Hussein NEED to be punished. There can not be a perception that such conduct is acceptable, or worse, profitable...

Back on topic:

If we were to take action on every state commiting crimes against humanity (many of them far worse than Hussein's) we would be beyond over our head. Besides, if taking out a bad person leads to a situation even worse than when he was around things have hardly improved.

[Gillipig]

Removing Saddam Hussein made the world safer, ONLY if we act to engage Iran as well. The job is only half done.

Regardless, removing him from power was the only acceptable action for the world community to take. Crimes against humanity have no statute of limitations and people like Hussein NEED to be punished. There can not be a perception that such conduct is acceptable, or worse, profitable...

Back on topic:

And I thought the other guy was stupid , Iran must not be touched!!! Their nuclear capabilities can only be estimated, the country is surrounded by high mountains, making it extremly hard to siege control over and quickly deal with the resistens, and the iranian people doesn't think that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a dictator, so don't expect them to support the U.S.! It would be the biggest misstake since Vietnam!!

[comic boy]

Removing Saddam Hussein made the world safer, ONLY if we act to engage Iran as well. The job is only half done.

Regardless, removing him from power was the only acceptable action for the world community to take. Crimes against humanity have no statute of limitations and people like Hussein NEED to be punished. There can not be a perception that such conduct is acceptable, or worse, profitable...

Back on topic:

Forcible regime change is a bit of an American speciality, it has certainly played its part in making the World more volatile ! I would love for you or Dim Jim to provide some links showing anywhere near a concencus supporting your wild claims, even most Bush appologists dont try to claim that the WORLD is safer since Saddam was overthrown.

[Skittles!]

And I thought the other guy was stupid , Iran must not be touched!!! Their nuclear capabilities can only be estimated, the country is surrounded by high mountains, making it extremly hard to siege control over and quickly deal with the resistens, and the iranian people doesn't think that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a dictator, so don't expect them to support the U.S.! It would be the biggest misstake since Vietnam!!

I would like to know - where the f*ck have you been for the past two or so months? The protests have been put down, doesn't meant they don't think he's a dictator.

[InkL0sed]

And I thought the other guy was stupid , Iran must not be touched!!! Their nuclear capabilities can only be estimated, the country is surrounded by high mountains, making it extremly hard to siege control over and quickly deal with the resistens, and the iranian people doesn't think that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a dictator, so don't expect them to support the U.S.! It would be the biggest misstake since Vietnam!!

I would like to know - where the f*ck have you been for the past two or so months? The protests have been put down, doesn't meant they don't think he's a dictator.

Some of them do. Iran is really complicated, and those protests weren't a revolution, no matter what we want to believe.

[Frigidus]

And I thought the other guy was stupid , Iran must not be touched!!! Their nuclear capabilities can only be estimated, the country is surrounded by high mountains, making it extremly hard to siege control over and quickly deal with the resistens, and the iranian people doesn't think that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a dictator, so don't expect them to support the U.S.! It would be the biggest misstake since Vietnam!!

I would like to know - where the f*ck have you been for the past two or so months? The protests have been put down, doesn't meant they don't think he's a dictator.

Some of them do. Iran is really complicated, and those protests weren't a revolution, no matter what we want to believe.

Either way, invading it would be hawkish to such an extreme that you would have to be entirely blinded by nationalism to consider it a sound strategy. You don't just destroy every country that ignores your demands.

[jsholty4690]

I voted for Jefferson because of what he did in office, while he was President. Washington didn't do much as President, but if it wasn't for him the USA wouldn't be what it is today. Both Roosevelts were more or less Socialists and to me the US was founded on Capitalist principles and they were as far away from Capitalists as you can go (except for LBJ and Obama of course). Jackson was the second most racist president we've had (Wilson being the most)(First being mainly Native Americans, the second Afircan Americans) . Kennedy's legacy is being shot, not something you want to known for. Harrison, do I need to mention Harrison? Lincoln kept the country together, which I think would get him a close second and Reagan would get a third because of his handling of the Cold War and helping the USSR collapse before its time.

I chose Jefferson because of the DOI, the Lousiana purchase, his racial sentiments (wanting to refute slavery in the DOI, but didn't because it wouldn't have made the final cut, oh and making sweet, sweet love with them ), and finally his philosophy on keeping government growth in check.

[Frigidus]

Both Roosevelts were more or less Socialists and to me the US was founded on Capitalist principles and they were as far away from Capitalists as you can go (except for LBJ and Obama of course).

Whoa, Teddy's a socialist? Who isn't, then? Aside from the anti-trust bit I can't imagine what would label him as such.

[jsholty4690]

Both Roosevelts were more or less Socialists and to me the US was founded on Capitalist principles and they were as far away from Capitalists as you can go (except for LBJ and Obama of course).

Whoa, Teddy's a socialist? Who isn't, then? Aside from the anti-trust bit I can't imagine what would label him as such.

Well, he was the first president to suggest a universal health care system and that was before the Europeans ever thought of that, he was also the first 'green' president, and like you said before the anti-trust busting (although Taft did more than Teddy did). Calling him a socialist was probably going too far, but what is the difference between a Progressive and a Socialist?

[GabonX]

If we were to take action on every state commiting crimes against humanity (many of them far worse than Hussein's) we would be beyond over our head. Besides, if taking out a bad person leads to a situation even worse than when he was around things have hardly improved.

First off, there are no people in power who have committed crimes against humanity which are WORSE than those of Saddam Hussein. He had committed A grade offenses and it would have been irresponsible to allow him to remain in power, as it is irresponsible to allow others who maintain power today continue to do so. I expect our current President to be greatly irresponsible in such respects and the bottom line is that his lack of action is likely to lead to nuclear war..possibly on US soil.

If we continue engaging enemies in 17th century stile warfare where armed men run through cities pointing guns at each other, you're right..we would be in over our heads. If on the other hand we utilized predator drones and cruise missiles against Kim Jung Il's palaces and missile launching pads we are well within our means.

And I thought the other guy was stupid , Iran must not be touched!!! Their nuclear capabilities can only be estimated, the country is surrounded by high mountains, making it extremly hard to siege control over and quickly deal with the resistens, and the iranian people doesn't think that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a dictator, so don't expect them to support the U.S.! It would be the biggest misstake since Vietnam!!

If we didn't have airplanes you would be correct, but the fact that we do means that we can fly over mountains.

Recent protests against Ahmidenijad would indicate that a large portion of the Iranian population sees him for what he is. I personally think he is of little significance as while he is the 'President' of Iran, Iran has another man who holds the title 'Supreme Leader.'

The Supreme Leader of Iran is a dictator, and he is the one who pulls the strings..most likely including the rigging of the recent elections.

Forcible regime change is a bit of an American speciality, it has certainly played its part in making the World more volatile ! I would love for you or Dim Jim to provide some links showing anywhere near a concencus supporting your wild claims, even most Bush appologists dont try to claim that the WORLD is safer since Saddam was overthrown.

Going by your logic we should have just let Hitler do his thing. Sprechen sie deutsche Comic?

The world is a better place without Saddam in power. Not only are we minus one dictator, but we act to create a precedent. If other would be dictators do not recognize our action as precedent, but rather view us as to weak to act again, we have waisted a great deal of resources.

[jsholty4690]

Forcible regime change is a bit of an American speciality, it has certainly played its part in making the World more volatile ! I would love for you or Dim Jim to provide some links showing anywhere near a concencus supporting your wild claims, even most Bush appologists dont try to claim that the WORLD is safer since Saddam was overthrown.

Going by your logic we should have just let Hitler do his thing. Sprechen sie deutsche Comic?

The world is a better place without Saddam in power. Not only are we minus one dictator, but we act to create a precedent. If other would be dictators do not recognize our action as precedent, but rather view us as to weak to act again, we have waisted a great deal of resources.[/quote]

I agree with you Gabon, the world is much safer without Saddam. What people fail to see is that Iraq was the only nation to use chemical and biological weapons in battle since WWI. And if you think that Saddam would have sat on his hands the rest of his life if we hadn't of interfered, you need a reality check.

The one problem with your logic Gabon is that some people might actually take our actions as a precedent and do things like invading defenseless nations on trumped up charged (Russia vs. Georgia).