PDA

View Full Version : Best President?



resister
02-17-2017, 09:32 AM
Who do you think was the best President and why? Mine would be JFK, if he would of lived, he was going to abolish the federal reserve. May very well be why he was killed.

Cigar
02-17-2017, 09:34 AM
Donald J Trump

resister
02-17-2017, 09:42 AM
Donald J Trump
I knew you would come around!

nathanbforrest45
02-17-2017, 10:02 AM
In my lifetime the best president by far would be Ronald Reagan.

MisterVeritis
02-17-2017, 10:02 AM
Who do you think was the best President and why? Mine would be JFK, if he would of lived, he was going to abolish the federal reserve. May very well be why he was killed.
George Washington. He set the stage.

MisterVeritis
02-17-2017, 10:03 AM
Donald J Trump
This is a bit premature but it does look like he will be a strong contender for the title in eight years.

Cigar
02-17-2017, 10:06 AM
George Washington. He set the stage.

At least he said he couldn't tell a LIE! :laugh:

Cigar
02-17-2017, 10:07 AM
In my lifetime the best president by far would be Ronald Reagan.

But that Black Stain will last forever :grin:

resister
02-17-2017, 10:13 AM
George Washington. He set the stage.
Agreed, I just thought JFK's plan to dismantle the fed. res., heroic.

MisterVeritis
02-17-2017, 10:34 AM
At least he said he couldn't tell a LIE! :laugh:
There are many unhelpful myths about him. I could offer you a short reading list.

MisterVeritis
02-17-2017, 10:35 AM
Agreed, I just thought JFK's plan to dismantle the fed. res., heroic.
Kennedy failed. Washington succeeded.

MisterVeritis
02-17-2017, 10:36 AM
But that Black Stain will last forever :grin:
The good news is The Half-Dark One will be in the top fifty.

Ethereal
02-17-2017, 10:42 AM
Who do you think was the best President and why? Mine would be JFK, if he would of lived, he was going to abolish the federal reserve. May very well be why he was killed.
The belief that JFK was trying to abolish the fed isn't actually true. It's a common misconception.

As for the best president, I would say Thomas Jefferson.

Private Pickle
02-17-2017, 10:45 AM
Lincoln.

valley ranch
02-17-2017, 10:52 AM
Teddy Roosevelt, Dwight D Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan



Haven't seen enough of but: JFK, D Trump

valley ranch
02-17-2017, 10:54 AM
But that Black Stain will last forever :grin:


Quit complaining, you are what you are!

birddog
02-17-2017, 11:09 AM
Reagan, Trump, Ford in that order. Reagan and Trump because we needed a special person to help us recover from a disaster. Ford because he was a great caretaker. JFK could have been in the top five if he had not appointed his idiot brother AG.

AZ Jim
02-17-2017, 11:10 AM
This is a bit premature but it does look like he will be a strong contender for the title in eight years.I won't be here to laugh at you then so HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

Cigar
02-17-2017, 11:10 AM
Reagan, Trump, Ford in that order. Reagan and Trump because we needed a special person to help us recover from a disaster. Ford because he was a great caretaker. JFK could have been in the top five if he had not appointed his idiot brother AG.

What. no Nixon :laugh:

resister
02-17-2017, 11:12 AM
I won't be here to laugh at you then so HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!See ya!

Cigar
02-17-2017, 11:12 AM
Quit complaining, you are what you are!

... and once you go Black ... Women lose their taste for Saltines :grin:

nathanbforrest45
02-17-2017, 11:17 AM
But that Black Stain will last forever :grin:

OK, this thread is finished. The Race Card has been played.

nathanbforrest45
02-17-2017, 11:23 AM
Actually, I've always said that William Henry Harrison was by far the best president. His administration was totally scandal free, his foreign policy could not be criticized and his budget was above reproach. He was also the end of an era being the last President born as a British Subject.

Cletus
02-17-2017, 11:24 AM
In my lifetime the best president by far would be Ronald Reagan.

I concur without reservation.

Cigar
02-17-2017, 11:25 AM
OK, this thread is finished. The Race Card has been played.

When the Game is Poker ... you place your Cards on the Table :laugh:

nathanbforrest45
02-17-2017, 11:28 AM
When the Game is Poker ... you place your Cards on the Table :laugh:


When the game is shutting down any meaningful dialogue you play the race card as soon as possible.

resister
02-17-2017, 08:47 PM
When the game is shutting down any meaningful dialogue you play the race card as soon as possible.
He had the runs all over the forum today!

Adelaide
02-18-2017, 08:38 AM
I would say FDR, then Eisenhower. FDR expanded the federal government too much, but I generally agree with what he did and why he did it even if I don't agree with how he did it.

Subdermal
02-18-2017, 09:27 AM
I would say FDR, then Eisenhower. FDR expanded the federal government too much, but I generally agree with what he did and why he did it even if I don't agree with how he did it.

FDR was a Socialist/Communist disguised as a sympathetic cripple. He was willing to sacrifice millions of American lives by goading Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor in order to protect the Soviet Union - his cherished model of political identity - from Germany.

He simultaneously used the economic duress created to institute an entitlement Governmental abuse of power which has caused incredible damage to our society, nearly single-handedly decimated black culture, and set us on the course of permanent indentured servitude to Government.

Your first choice was positively horrid.

You haven't said why you like Eisenhower, but what I find interesting is that - if my suspicions on your proclivity to like Eisenhower's warnings of the "military industrial complex" are correct - you seem blissfully unaware of the degree to which FDR laid the groundwork to establish that complex.

Your choices stand in conflict with themselves.

resister
02-18-2017, 09:31 AM
Roseavelt(?) Did a good thing creating National parks, not sure about the rest of what he did. Kind of ironic for a man who traveled the globe hunting for sport, possibly a mitigation action?

AZ Jim
02-18-2017, 10:27 AM
See ya!You want nature to kill me on a priority basis? I won't make 89 but I have a few miles left.

Croft
02-18-2017, 11:57 AM
This is a bit premature but it does look like he will be a strong contender for the title in eight years.
If he builds the wall, deports the illegals, builds a healthy relationship with Russia and gets millions of jobs back he'll be the best since JFK.

If he restores sanity and freedom to the universities as well he'll be the best since Lincoln. Because the brainwashing of America's young really is an abomination and a permanent undermining of the countries long term freedom..

If he ends the Fed he'll be the best since Washington because he'll have freed the United States and undone precisely the state of affairs that Washington wrote that he feared the most.

Trump is a breath of representation and freedom. My bet is he'll probably end up the best since JFK.

Green Arrow
02-18-2017, 12:03 PM
Theodore Roosevelt.

AZ Jim
02-18-2017, 12:13 PM
Roseavelt(?) Did a good thing creating National parks, not sure about the rest of what he did. Kind of ironic for a man who traveled the globe hunting for sport, possibly a mitigation action?You are mixing FDR with Teddy Roosevelt.

AZ Jim
02-18-2017, 12:14 PM
If he builds the wall, deports the illegals, builds a healthy relationship with Russia and gets millions of jobs back he'll be the best since JFK.

If he restores sanity and freedom to the universities as well he'll be the best since Lincoln. Because the brainwashing of America's young really is an abomination and a permanent undermining of the countries long term freedom..

If he ends the Fed he'll be the best since Washington because he'll have freed the United States and undone precisely the state of affairs that Washington wrote that he feared the most.

Trump is a breath of representation and freedom. My bet is he'll probably end up the best since JFK.Oh brother.

resister
02-18-2017, 12:50 PM
You want nature to kill me on a priority basis? I won't make 89 but I have a few miles left.I was referring to you derailing this thread with trump hate.

MisterVeritis
02-18-2017, 02:09 PM
This is a bit premature but it does look like he will be a strong contender for the title in eight years.

I won't be here to laugh at you then so HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
I shall enjoy the last laugh.

MisterVeritis
02-18-2017, 02:12 PM
OK, this thread is finished. The Race Card has been played.
I suggest ignoring the attempt to derail the thread. Cigar will always be amusing and frequently irrelevant.

resister
02-18-2017, 02:12 PM
You are mixing FDR with Teddy Roosevelt.No, I was thinking of Teddy.

MisterVeritis
02-18-2017, 02:14 PM
Roseavelt(?) Did a good thing creating National parks, not sure about the rest of what he did. Kind of ironic for a man who traveled the globe hunting for sport, possibly a mitigation action?
I believe this was an unconstitutional law. The Constitution grants the Federal government a limited right to own property. National Parks and monuments fall outside the limits.

MisterVeritis
02-18-2017, 02:19 PM
Theodore Roosevelt.
I have several books on TR I have not yet read. I shall elevate them in the stack. Right now I am reading a two-volume book on George Washington. That will bring the total specifically about Washinton to five.

Chris
02-18-2017, 02:23 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcINPY21pVA

Tahuyaman
02-18-2017, 02:50 PM
In my lifetime the best president by far would be Ronald Reagan.

I would agree with that.

However to pinpoint the greatest of all time you need to go back to the founding of the nation. The men who took the huge risk to create this nation and then hold it together were true visionaries.

Subdermal
02-18-2017, 02:52 PM
Roseavelt(?) Did a good thing creating National parks, not sure about the rest of what he did. Kind of ironic for a man who traveled the globe hunting for sport, possibly a mitigation action?

Roosevelt did not do a good thing establishing National Parks. It is not his job, nor has it ever supposed to be possible for the Federal Government to annex any land from States.

But that's exactly what they've done. What started as a few thousand acres for the Fed has turned into millions of square miles for the Fed.

Unacceptable, and a terrible abuse of power - and exactly why the Fed has granted itself authority over cattle ranchers like Bundy.

resister
02-18-2017, 02:55 PM
Roosevelt did not do a good thing establishing National Parks. It is not his job, nor has it ever supposed to be possible for the Federal Government to annex any land from States.

But that's exactly what they've done. What started as a few thousands acres for the Fed has turned into millions of square miles for the Fed.

Unacceptable, and a terrible abuse of power - and exactly why the Fed has granted itself authority over cattle ranchers like Bundy.
Point taken, but I am glad national parks are not subdivisions even if the method was wrong, but I agree it has been abused.

Subdermal
02-18-2017, 02:56 PM
Point taken, but I am glad national parks are not subdivisions even if the method was wrong, but I agree it has been abused.
There would have been nothing wrong with States doing so. That is allowed.

Green Arrow
02-18-2017, 04:40 PM
Roosevelt did not do a good thing establishing National Parks. It is not his job, nor has it ever supposed to be possible for the Federal Government to annex any land from States.

But that's exactly what they've done. What started as a few thousand acres for the Fed has turned into millions of square miles for the Fed.

Unacceptable, and a terrible abuse of power - and exactly why the Fed has granted itself authority over cattle ranchers like Bundy.

Article IV, section 3 allows it and places no limitations on how much.

MisterVeritis
02-18-2017, 05:40 PM
Article IV, section 3 allows it and places no limitations on how much.
"Under the Necessary and Proper Clause, the federal government may acquire and retain land necessary for carrying out its enumerated powers. This includes parcels for military bases, post offices, buildings to house federal employees undertaking enumerated functions, and the like. It is not necessary to form federal enclaves for these purposes.* But within state boundaries, the Constitution grants no authority to retain acreage for unenumerated purposes, such as land for grazing, mineral development, agriculture, forests, or parks.
* Once a state is created and is thereby no longer a territory, the federal government has a duty to dispose of tracts not used for enumerated purposes.
* In the process of disposal, the federal government must follow the rules of public trust."
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2016/02/10/what-does-the-constitution-say-about-federal-land-ownership/

We disagree.

Green Arrow
02-18-2017, 06:04 PM
"Under the Necessary and Proper Clause, the federal government may acquire and retain land necessary for carrying out its enumerated powers. This includes parcels for military bases, post offices, buildings to house federal employees undertaking enumerated functions, and the like. It is not necessary to form federal enclaves for these purposes.* But within state boundaries, the Constitution grants no authority to retain acreage for unenumerated purposes, such as land for grazing, mineral development, agriculture, forests, or parks.
* Once a state is created and is thereby no longer a territory, the federal government has a duty to dispose of tracts not used for enumerated purposes.
* In the process of disposal, the federal government must follow the rules of public trust."
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2016/02/10/what-does-the-constitution-say-about-federal-land-ownership/

We disagree.
It's certainly not the first time. Your article actually agrees with me, though. I note you didn't quote that part.


In a nutshell, my findings were:* Under the Property Clause (Art. IV, Sec. 3, Cl. 2), land titled to the federal government and held outside state boundaries is “Territory.” Federal land held within state boundaries is “other Property.”

That's precisely what I said. Article IV, Section 3, second clause gives the federal government the ability to control land within state boundaries. Particularly when you consider that much of this land belonged to the federal government long before a state's borders were established around it.

Of course, again, states are subservient to the federal government anyway so even if it was land within the state before it was federal government land, it's federal government land now.

Subdermal
02-18-2017, 06:30 PM
Article IV, section 3 allows it and places no limitations on how much.


"Under the Necessary and Proper Clause, the federal government may acquire and retain land necessary for carrying out its enumerated powers. This includes parcels for military bases, post offices, buildings to house federal employees undertaking enumerated functions, and the like. It is not necessary to form federal enclaves for these purposes.* But within state boundaries, the Constitution grants no authority to retain acreage for unenumerated purposes, such as land for grazing, mineral development, agriculture, forests, or parks.
* Once a state is created and is thereby no longer a territory, the federal government has a duty to dispose of tracts not used for enumerated purposes.
* In the process of disposal, the federal government must follow the rules of public trust."
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2016/02/10/what-does-the-constitution-say-about-federal-land-ownership/

We disagree.


It's certainly not the first time. Your article actually agrees with me, though. I note you didn't quote that part.



That's precisely what I said. Article IV, Section 3, second clause gives the federal government the ability to control land within state boundaries. Particularly when you consider that much of this land belonged to the federal government long before a state's borders were established around it.

Of course, again, states are subservient to the federal government anyway so even if it was land within the state before it was federal government land, it's federal government land now.


:facepalm:

States are NOT supposed to be "subservient" to Federal Government beyond very specific enumerated roles - and those aren't roles which place States subservient; they are roles which take burdens off of States. Where the hell did you get that addled notion?

I do not find your argument compelling. You yourself should cede that point, with the millions of acres now under Federal Control.

If you cannot see that as the abuse of power that it is, there is no further point in discussing it, particularly since it isn't the Constitution which has provided your argument. You're twisting words to actually claim that land within State incorporation is still territory: you're just trying to call it "other property" without requiring that such "other property" meets the test as defined below. This line alone is definitive:

But within state boundaries, the Constitution grants no authority to retain acreage for unenumerated purposes, such as land for grazing, mineral development, agriculture, forests, or parks.

That's horrible logic to suggest there is any valid override. You are simply a big Government leftist, regardless your packaging.

MisterVeritis
02-18-2017, 07:09 PM
It's certainly not the first time. Your article actually agrees with me, though. I note you didn't quote that part.
No. It doesn't.
That's precisely what I said. Article IV, Section 3, second clause gives the federal government the ability to control land within state boundaries. Particularly when you consider that much of this land belonged to the federal government long before a state's borders were established around it.
Prior to it being a state it was a territory. Once a territory becomes a state the federal government must give that land to the state.You completely missed that the property must be used to support the enumerated clauses of Article 1 section 8. Is 30% of the nation a post office?

Of course, again, states are subservient to the federal government anyway so even if it was land within the state before it was federal government land, it's federal government land now.

This is why we can no longer have nice things. You intentionally misunderstand federalism and the Constitution.

Green Arrow
02-18-2017, 07:12 PM
:facepalm:

States are NOT supposed to be "subservient" to Federal Government beyond very specific enumerated roles
Precisely. Glad you agree.

I do not find your argument compelling. You yourself should cede that point, with the millions of acres now under Federal Control.
I don't find that at all troubling and you've yet to provide a rational reason for me to find it troubling.

I also (and this is a minor thing so don't get your knickers in a twist) don't quite understand your habit of randomly capitalizing words that shouldn't be. Like "federal control" here.

If you cannot see that as the abuse of power that it is, there is no further point in discussing it, particularly since it isn't the Constitution which has provided your argument.

You have yet to actually explain just how it is an abuse of power, you've just stated repeatedly that it is. You should probably work to improve your own arguments before bashing mine. I haven't even begun to argue on this subject, this is just passive commentary.


You're twisting words to actually claim that land within State incorporation is still territory: you're just trying to call it "other property" without requiring that such "other property" meets the test as defined below. This line alone is definitive:

But within state boundaries, the Constitution grants no authority to retain acreage for unenumerated purposes, such as land for grazing, mineral development, agriculture, forests, or parks.

That's horrible logic to suggest there is any valid override.

The funny thing about enumerated powers with regard to the constitution is that most of the time they are anything but explicit. Congress has fleshed out the "Property Clause" and to date I don't think there's been any successful challenge in the courts to argue that the national park system or the national park service are somehow an unconstitutional overreach. And again, you've yet to explain why it's some vast cosmic evil.


You are simply a big Government leftist, regardless your packaging.

Grasp tightly onto your label-maker, it might soon be your only defense.

Archer0915
02-18-2017, 07:13 PM
The best human being in my lifetime was Carter, crap president. As far as the job, tough call. I would say Ike, Truman, Lincoln and Washington.

Green Arrow
02-18-2017, 07:13 PM
Prior to it being a state it was a territory. Once a territory becomes a state the federal government must give that land to the state.You completely missed that the property must be used to support the enumerated clauses of Article 1 section 8. Is 30% of the nation a post office?
No, but it doesn't have to be in order to be a legitimate use of the land.

This is why we can no longer have nice things. You intentionally misunderstand federalism and the Constitution.
I understand it perfectly. I just happen to disagree.

MisterVeritis
02-18-2017, 07:16 PM
No, but it doesn't have to be in order to be a legitimate use of the land.
I understand it perfectly. I just happen to disagree.
You subvert the Constitution.

The Constitution is clear. You did say earlier we could simply ignore it. And so you have.

Green Arrow
02-18-2017, 07:22 PM
You subvert the Constitution.
I appreciate that you think I have that kind of power, but I don't.

The Constitution is clear. You did say earlier we could simply ignore it. And so you have.
I don't ignore it. I said we could, not that we should.

Subdermal
02-18-2017, 07:22 PM
Precisely. Glad you agree.

Your backtrack is noted. You made an unequivocal statement: States are to be subservient to Federal Government.

Glad you now agree that they aren't.


I don't find that at all troubling and you've yet to provide a rational reason for me to find it troubling.

Land is power. Are you unaware? Do you not understand the conflicts of interest that arise as a result, such as what has been taking place with good American ranchers?

How much in denial must you be to delve a "rational reason" to find it troubling? That it is a DISTINCT Constitutional violation should be ENOUGH.


I also (and this is a minor thing so don't get your knickers in a twist) don't quite understand your habit of randomly capitalizing words that shouldn't be. Like "federal control" here.


Look. A Squirrel.


You have yet to actually explain just how it is an abuse of power, you've just stated repeatedly that it is. You should probably work to improve your own arguments before bashing mine. I haven't even begun to argue on this subject, this is just passive commentary.


Ugh. Then stop wasting our time on stupiod minutiae.


The funny thing about enumerated powers with regard to the constitution is that most of the time they are anything but explicit.


Spoken like a true leftist. The very word enumerated means specific.


Congress has fleshed out the "Property Clause" and to date I don't think there's been any successful challenge in the courts to argue that the national park system or the national park service are somehow an unconstitutional overreach. And again, you've yet to explain why it's some vast cosmic evil.


They've "fleshed out" what again? There is no 'challenge' in Court. Congress either codified such a "fleshing out" (to which you offer zero cite) without an Amendment. It is not the Court's role to challenge the Constitution, only to obey it.

Chalk it up to yet another thing about which you are confused.


Grasp tightly onto your label-maker, it might soon be your only defense.

Who needs any defense? You've yet to get about an offense.

MisterVeritis
02-18-2017, 07:25 PM
I appreciate that you think I have that kind of power, but I don't.
You lend your willing support to those who have and who do subvert the Constitution. Is that more to your liking? Why be a pedant?
The Constitution is clear. You did say earlier we could simply ignore it. And so you have.

I don't ignore it. I said we could, not that we should.
And yet the stance you took is the unconstitutional one. You chose to ignore the Constitution's plain language.

Green Arrow
02-18-2017, 07:44 PM
Your backtrack is noted. You made an unequivocal statement: States are to be subservient to Federal Government.

Glad you now agree that they aren't.
I never said they weren't. I stand by my original comment.
Also, it's not a backtrack. As per usual, you read into my statement and now want to play the gotcha game when I obviously don't go along with what you added. I said states are subservient to the federal government. This is a statement of fact. The supremacy clause of the constitution, among other things, agrees with my opinion. You can choose to define subservient to somehow mean I'm suggesting the states are slavishly obligated to kiss the federal emperor's ring but that's not what I said. I go with Merriam-Webster, specifically the first option (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subservient):

useful in an inferior capacity : subordinate

It's quite simple.

Land is power. Are you unaware? Do you not understand the conflicts of interest that arise as a result, such as what has been taking place with good American ranchers?
I suppose if you view the states as separate countries from the federal government that would be relevant, but considering the states are effectively divisions within the country run by the federal government that doesn't apply. We're not talking about Russia and China quibbling over resources. That land is under the jurisdiction of the National Parks Service precisely to protect it from any kind of conflicts and misuse.

How much in denial must you be to delve a "rational reason" to find it troubling? That it is a DISTINCT Constitutional violation should be ENOUGH.
Everything must have a rational reason to exist, you don't want to live in a world devoid of rationality.

Look. A Squirrel.
Yes, of course. I've addressed every single point you've made (even painstakingly separating each point for clarity) but this is absolutely my attempt to avoid the discussion :rollseyes:
Seriously, though, why do you do it? It makes no sense.

Ugh. Then stop wasting our time on stupiod minutiae.
Such as...what, exactly? The only argument you've given me to reply to is that you believe the federal government shouldn't control the land it controls because the constitution doesn't explicitly give it a lease on parts of Nevada. The rest of your posts have been the rather rude implication that I am dishonest and unintelligent.
Give me something valuable to respond to and I will do so. If you're going to offer bad-faith rudeness I'll respond in kind. We might get somewhere with the former option and we'll most assuredly get nowhere on the second.

Spoken like a true leftist. The very word enumerated means specific.
Right. So tell me how the "General Welfare" clause is specific.

They've "fleshed out" what again? There is no 'challenge' in Court. Congress either codified such a "fleshing out" (to which you offer zero cite) without an Amendment. It is not the Court's role to challenge the Constitution, only to obey it.
Don't be obtuse. Congress decided that specific part of the constitution gave them the authority to establish the national parks system and the National Parks Service. If states are that offended by it they could have, at any point in the last hundred years, challenged that interpretation of the constitution in the courts, at which point the courts could have upheld the constitution and struck it down.

There's literally zero reason to get out of my statement that the courts are the ones challenging the constitution. This is, again, a real problem of yours. You don't ever just read the words someone writes, you read all kinds of nonsense into what people say so you can distort it to fit your agenda. That's not good faith discussion etiquette, good sir.

Chalk it up to yet another thing about which you are confused.
Hey, another unnecessary and unprovoked insult. Would you cry foul if I reciprocated?

Who needs any defense? You've yet to get about an offense.
Why is an offense necessary? This is a discussion, not a war. I've presented my perspective on yours and Veritis's posts.

Green Arrow
02-18-2017, 07:46 PM
You lend your willing support to those who have and who do subvert the Constitution. Is that more to your liking? Why be a pedant?Who have I supported in subverting the constitution? Name some names.

And yet the stance you took is the unconstitutional one. You chose to ignore the Constitution's plain language.
First of all, I disagree that my stance is unconstitutional. Second, there is almost no real "plain language" in the constitution. Rather fitting that Madison was educated in law school, because the constitution is very much a lawyer's document.

MisterVeritis
02-18-2017, 07:48 PM
So there it is. The leftist view, supported by many is the states are mere appendages of the Federal government, subservient. The Constitution may be ignored and is ignored. The Welfare clause no longer means the non-defense articles. It means the government can do as it pleases.

This is why we live in a soft tyranny.

donttread
02-18-2017, 07:55 PM
Who do you think was the best President and why? Mine would be JFK, if he would of lived, he was going to abolish the federal reserve. May very well be why he was killed.

Preseidents who take on the federal reserve don't tend to fair well. I think this is a little like the "Who's the best Quarterback of all time" It's fun to discuss but there really is no answer. Times, rules, expectations, technology and team mates all change and all are intricate parts of who is "the best"
Fiscally, I can tell you rather objectively that the last two have been the worst. They also made war of 13 of their sixteen years. Cliton was a clown, but under his admin. we at least balanced 1 budget.
But I guess I'll do with washington because he was the first and got to guide us as an actual Constitutional Republic before that all started to change.

texan
02-18-2017, 08:44 PM
How Many people have died? Cream puff nation.

donttread
02-19-2017, 07:22 AM
How Many people have died? Cream puff nation.

Wut?

Adelaide
02-19-2017, 07:25 AM
But that Black Stain will last forever :grin:

The good news is The Half-Dark One will be in the top fifty.
Both thread banned.

rcfieldz
02-19-2017, 07:31 AM
... and once you go Black ... Women lose their taste for Saltines :grin:
You need a day job!

donttread
02-19-2017, 07:32 AM
So there it is. The leftist view, supported by many is the states are mere appendages of the Federal government, subservient. The Constitution may be ignored and is ignored. The Welfare clause no longer means the non-defense articles. It means the government can do as it pleases.

This is why we live in a soft tyranny.

It's not just the left , both "sides" see the BOR's as a pick and choose menu. One "side" intrudes upon gun rights, the other upon due process and both upon free speech and states rights for example.
However the further we stray from the Constitution the worse things get and that dosn't even meet the donkephants self serving definition of "general welfare".