Least favorite president of the United States? - Page 3

Philip55 · 01-25-2005, 10:05 PM

Okay, so Andrew Jackson probably shouldn't be on the twenty, but if we're going to replace someone, for goodness sakes, WTF is GRANT doing on the fifty?!

Take him off, and replace him with Reagan. James Polk would be a good replacement for Andrew Jackson.

ocarinagirl · 01-25-2005, 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Philip55:
Okay, so Andrew Jackson probably shouldn't be on the twenty, but if we're going to replace someone, for goodness sakes, WTF is GRANT doing on the fifty?!

Yeah, Grant wasn't all that great either, was he? =/

I was mainly complaining about the Jackson Administration, Jay, but...I don't know, the fact that Jackson still let that happen really bothers me. o_O

Nick · 01-25-2005, 10:14 PM

Political generals. Grant is credited with winning the civil war for the north (lets face it, Lee was the best general at the time) whereas Jackson had a folk-hero sense to him.

Any replacement on currency would likely be a modern president (20th century). Reagan, maybe FDR or Kennedy. I'd rather see Monroe or Madison personally.

Jonathan Resop · 01-26-2005, 12:08 AM

Yeah, I know. I just felt like pointing that out. People give Jackson a lot of beef because of the Trail of Tears, and while it's right to critisize the man because of that terrible event, you still have to think about the times. At the time, people in Georgia were constantly fighting the Indians, and no one really cared about them.

Yeah, who knows what the currency people were thinking. Heh.

And Grant definately wasn't one of our more inspiring presidents. It's not like he didn't anything bad, he just didn't do anything, for eight whole years...heh. He was an interesting guy though. And there's not much bad about him to my knowledge, except that he drunk a lot and had poor tastes in friends. A few scandals where he appointed some of his bum friends into offices where they did some corrupt things.

Lee was an amasing general...and yeah, probably be best at the time. But Grant was the only union general with the guts to charge and pound away at Lee until the war was over. None of the other bum generals we had could do that. So Grant deserves at least some credit for ending the war.

The only reason I can think for Grant and Jackson being on the bills is because of their popularity as generals. They're well known American icons, for better or worse.

Plus, they're a lot more interesting then some of the more boring presidents, at least, heh.

I mean, who wants to see Buchanan on a bill? Heh.

They should put TR on a bill, hehe.

Although our currency is so ingrained into our society now...it would be hard to change them. I doubt they'll be replaced any time soon.-jay

The Missing Link · 01-26-2005, 12:24 AM

If they can make our $20s look like they've been bleached in the middle, I doubt it's as difficult as you might think.

Jonathan Resop · 01-26-2005, 12:45 AM

Still Jackson on there though. If they were going to change it, don't you think they would have by now? What are they waiting for?-jay

Bomby · 01-26-2005, 12:59 AM

If the revolution that began in the sixties would've completed, Jackson would not be on the 20.

Martin Luther King, Jr. would be an agreeable person for a replacement. I could elaborate, but that's not necessary, considering that this topic is about presidents, not money.

***CaptHayfever*** · 01-26-2005, 03:29 PM

^I've got a pocketful of dead presidents who disagree.

And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"

Toad556 · 01-26-2005, 04:29 PM

What Malik Said.

MLK I think should be on some bill. preferably 10 or 20, or we can make a new $40 bill?

The Missing Link · 01-26-2005, 09:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toad 556:
we can make a new $40 bill?

Provided you get rid of the $50; otherwise there'd be no point.

Cornell J · 01-29-2005, 02:38 PM

I don't think Ollie was being serious TML..

NOTE TO ALL:

never take ollie seriously.

imported_ · 02-04-2005, 03:10 AM

Jackson was pretty terrible, but not really terrible given the times. He was a strong leader and took no **** from the south.

Historians generally believe the three worst presidents are, in no order:

Buchanan - Sat on his hands while the South seceded
WG Harding - Terribly corrupt
Grant - Useless, corrupt administration

Chester A. Arthur was actually a fine man, he went against his initial election platform to give root out corruption in the civil service.

JFK is easily the most overrated prez - he did nothing except get shot

If you're liberal, FDR is #1, if you're conservative, his awesome points match his disastrous points and he averages out somewhere in the middle.

John Adams also wasn't too good, but he was a Founding Father, so we lend him some sugar.

Nick · 02-04-2005, 07:00 AM

JFK really couldn't do anything. He barely won the election against Nixon and didn't possess a political mandate (meaning opposition could block legislation). Getting shot helped get all of his ideas and programs jammed through during LBJ's terms. Granted, LBJ extended many of them and increased involvement in Vietnam, so both of their legacies were tarnished by 1968.

***CaptHayfever*** · 02-04-2005, 04:28 PM

^^Andrew Johnson was pretty ineffective as well; Congress walked all over him after his impeachment, which they probably only did to be able to walk all over him afterwards.

I thought the South didn't secede until after Lincoln won?

And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"

imported_ · 02-04-2005, 06:00 PM

Yes, but there was Buchanan's lame duck period, to say nothing of the fact that the problem was looming during his entire term, and he did nothing.

Johnson was ineffective, but that wasn't really his fault. He and Lincoln had formed a joint ticket, Lincoln being Republican and Johnson being Democrat,
but then after Lincoln's death, the republican dominated Congress wanted to undo the radical power grabs Lincoln had made while in office, and when better to do them than with a Democrat in office.

Everybody Nose · 02-04-2005, 07:50 PM

Quote:

If you're liberal, FDR is #1,

Quit assuming, it's more like Bill Clinton [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Dusty · 02-20-2005, 03:04 PM

Hard to believe only one person so far has mentioned Harding. He takes the cake for outright worst (most corrupt) president.

Most ineffective would likely be either Carter or a president from the post-Johnson, pre-TR era. Because of that impeachment, Congress basically had the White House in a strangehold, and besides that the entire Gilded Age was just a political deadlock (though the Republicans won the presidency outside of Grover, they did it often by the "Bush 2000" method and otherwise by slim margins). Grant's a good pick; Grant himself wasn't corrupt, but his only real plan that I can recall was to annex the now-Dominican Republic as a state to which former slaves could migrate.

And you guys are going way too hard on Jackson. The only thing that's keeping him out of the top 5 presidents, for me, is Trail of Tears, and his reasoning for that was actually to protect the tribes from Americans by granting them sovereignty in territory Jackson thought would remain untouched--a somewhat noble plan, to me.

Shane Sacobie · 02-20-2005, 05:01 PM

I'm not going to pick any, but I'd agree with Lurch. The best period to look at is probably somewhere between the Civil War and the Depression.

WWII brought us to prosperity, not any antidepressant programs. We did take way too long to react to the war (and couldn't care less about the holocaust), although by that time half the world was destroyed, so maybe it was useful to us that we did take so long. It never was an American crisis, though.

Social Security was a good idea, in theory.

Quote:

The one who thinks he will become Supreme Ruler of the Universe: BUSH!

What do you mean thinks?

Quote:

In terms of how we treated the Native Americans over the course of history, we simply suck as a whole.-jay

Yep. We suck just as bad now, too.

Grant's childhood nickname Useless stuck with him throughout his life. He was supposedly a good general, though.

It's interesting to see the choices people make when first given the right to vote. The first President following black suffrage was Grant. The first one following women's suffrage was Harding.

**Prince Toad** · 02-20-2005, 05:33 PM

^I heard that last bit was because Harding was supposedly good-looking. Those wacky women.

Philip55 · 02-20-2005, 11:03 PM

Harding won because of widespread distaste for Wilson.

01-25-2005, 10:05 PM	#41
Philip55 Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 142 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Points: 4,718.00 Bank: 500.00 Total Points: 5,218.00 Donate	Okay, so Andrew Jackson probably shouldn't be on the twenty, but if we're going to replace someone, for goodness sakes, WTF is GRANT doing on the fifty?! Take him off, and replace him with Reagan. James Polk would be a good replacement for Andrew Jackson.

01-25-2005, 10:14 PM	#43
Nick Banned Join Date: Dec 1969 Posts: 0 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Points: 10,679.00 Bank: 500.00 Total Points: 11,179.00 Donate	Political generals. Grant is credited with winning the civil war for the north (lets face it, Lee was the best general at the time) whereas Jackson had a folk-hero sense to him. Any replacement on currency would likely be a modern president (20th century). Reagan, maybe FDR or Kennedy. I'd rather see Monroe or Madison personally.

01-26-2005, 12:08 AM	#44
Jonathan Resop Banned Join Date: Dec 1969 Posts: 1 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Points: 35,456.00 Bank: 500.00 Total Points: 35,956.00 Donate	Yeah, I know. I just felt like pointing that out. People give Jackson a lot of beef because of the Trail of Tears, and while it's right to critisize the man because of that terrible event, you still have to think about the times. At the time, people in Georgia were constantly fighting the Indians, and no one really cared about them. Yeah, who knows what the currency people were thinking. Heh. And Grant definately wasn't one of our more inspiring presidents. It's not like he didn't anything bad, he just didn't do anything, for eight whole years...heh. He was an interesting guy though. And there's not much bad about him to my knowledge, except that he drunk a lot and had poor tastes in friends. A few scandals where he appointed some of his bum friends into offices where they did some corrupt things. Lee was an amasing general...and yeah, probably be best at the time. But Grant was the only union general with the guts to charge and pound away at Lee until the war was over. None of the other bum generals we had could do that. So Grant deserves at least some credit for ending the war. The only reason I can think for Grant and Jackson being on the bills is because of their popularity as generals. They're well known American icons, for better or worse. Plus, they're a lot more interesting then some of the more boring presidents, at least, heh. I mean, who wants to see Buchanan on a bill? Heh. They should put TR on a bill, hehe. Although our currency is so ingrained into our society now...it would be hard to change them. I doubt they'll be replaced any time soon.-jay

01-26-2005, 12:24 AM	#45
The Missing Link Professional Lurker Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: New Hyrule, Washington, US Gender: Posts: 15,682 Thanks: 83 Thanked 294 Times in 201 Posts Points: 11,181.71 Bank: 75,954.36 Total Points: 87,136.07 Donate	If they can make our $20s look like they've been bleached in the middle, I doubt it's as difficult as you might think.

01-26-2005, 12:45 AM	#46
Jonathan Resop Banned Join Date: Dec 1969 Posts: 1 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Points: 35,456.00 Bank: 500.00 Total Points: 35,956.00 Donate	Still Jackson on there though. If they were going to change it, don't you think they would have by now? What are they waiting for?-jay

01-26-2005, 12:59 AM	#47
Bomby The Man Who Sold the World Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Off the coast and I'm headed nowhere Gender: Posts: 15,241 Thanks: 212 Thanked 625 Times in 406 Posts Blog Entries: 4 Points: 11,061.87 Bank: 2,660,126.66 Total Points: 2,671,188.53 Donate	If the revolution that began in the sixties would've completed, Jackson would not be on the 20. Martin Luther King, Jr. would be an agreeable person for a replacement. I could elaborate, but that's not necessary, considering that this topic is about presidents, not money.

01-26-2005, 03:29 PM	#48
*CaptHayfever* Smash Supermod Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: (n) - the place where I am Gender: Posts: 19,534 Thanks: 181 Thanked 835 Times in 528 Posts Points: 111,750.99 Bank: 1,268.17 Total Points: 113,019.16 Donate	^I've got a pocketful of dead presidents who disagree. And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"

01-26-2005, 04:29 PM	#49
Toad556 Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Pffft <insert witty comment here> Gender: Posts: 687 Thanks: 2 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Points: 28,619.71 Bank: 500.00 Total Points: 29,119.71 Donate	What Malik Said. MLK I think should be on some bill. preferably 10 or 20, or we can make a new $40 bill?

01-29-2005, 02:38 PM	#51
Cornell J Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Memphis, TN Posts: 1,074 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Points: 12,077.67 Bank: 358.60 Total Points: 12,436.27 Donate	I don't think Ollie was being serious TML.. NOTE TO ALL: never take ollie seriously.

02-04-2005, 03:10 AM	#52
imported_ Banned Join Date: Dec 1969 Posts: 0 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Points: 4,432.00 Bank: 500.00 Total Points: 4,932.00 Donate	Jackson was pretty terrible, but not really terrible given the times. He was a strong leader and took no **** from the south. Historians generally believe the three worst presidents are, in no order: Buchanan - Sat on his hands while the South seceded WG Harding - Terribly corrupt Grant - Useless, corrupt administration Chester A. Arthur was actually a fine man, he went against his initial election platform to give root out corruption in the civil service. JFK is easily the most overrated prez - he did nothing except get shot If you're liberal, FDR is #1, if you're conservative, his awesome points match his disastrous points and he averages out somewhere in the middle. John Adams also wasn't too good, but he was a Founding Father, so we lend him some sugar.

02-04-2005, 07:00 AM	#53
Nick Banned Join Date: Dec 1969 Posts: 0 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Points: 10,679.00 Bank: 500.00 Total Points: 11,179.00 Donate	JFK really couldn't do anything. He barely won the election against Nixon and didn't possess a political mandate (meaning opposition could block legislation). Getting shot helped get all of his ideas and programs jammed through during LBJ's terms. Granted, LBJ extended many of them and increased involvement in Vietnam, so both of their legacies were tarnished by 1968.

02-04-2005, 04:28 PM	#54
*CaptHayfever* Smash Supermod Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: (n) - the place where I am Gender: Posts: 19,534 Thanks: 181 Thanked 835 Times in 528 Posts Points: 111,750.99 Bank: 1,268.17 Total Points: 113,019.16 Donate	^^Andrew Johnson was pretty ineffective as well; Congress walked all over him after his impeachment, which they probably only did to be able to walk all over him afterwards. I thought the South didn't secede until after Lincoln won? And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"

02-04-2005, 06:00 PM	#55
imported_ Banned Join Date: Dec 1969 Posts: 0 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Points: 4,432.00 Bank: 500.00 Total Points: 4,932.00 Donate	Yes, but there was Buchanan's lame duck period, to say nothing of the fact that the problem was looming during his entire term, and he did nothing. Johnson was ineffective, but that wasn't really his fault. He and Lincoln had formed a joint ticket, Lincoln being Republican and Johnson being Democrat, but then after Lincoln's death, the republican dominated Congress wanted to undo the radical power grabs Lincoln had made while in office, and when better to do them than with a Democrat in office.

02-20-2005, 03:04 PM	#57
Dusty Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Under your bed Posts: 205 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Points: 2,873.00 Bank: 500.00 Total Points: 3,373.00 Donate	Hard to believe only one person so far has mentioned Harding. He takes the cake for outright worst (most corrupt) president. Most ineffective would likely be either Carter or a president from the post-Johnson, pre-TR era. Because of that impeachment, Congress basically had the White House in a strangehold, and besides that the entire Gilded Age was just a political deadlock (though the Republicans won the presidency outside of Grover, they did it often by the "Bush 2000" method and otherwise by slim margins). Grant's a good pick; Grant himself wasn't corrupt, but his only real plan that I can recall was to annex the now-Dominican Republic as a state to which former slaves could migrate. And you guys are going way too hard on Jackson. The only thing that's keeping him out of the top 5 presidents, for me, is Trail of Tears, and his reasoning for that was actually to protect the tribes from Americans by granting them sovereignty in territory Jackson thought would remain untouched--a somewhat noble plan, to me.

02-20-2005, 05:33 PM	#59
Prince Toad PC Mod Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Rookery Gender: Posts: 11,418 Thanks: 43 Thanked 56 Times in 47 Posts Points: 44,730.38 Bank: 22,313.30 Total Points: 67,043.68 Donate	^I heard that last bit was because Harding was supposedly good-looking. Those wacky women.

02-20-2005, 11:03 PM	#60
Philip55 Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 142 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Points: 4,718.00 Bank: 500.00 Total Points: 5,218.00 Donate	Harding won because of widespread distaste for Wilson.