NFT: Who do you believe was the Greatest US President?

[madbadger]

  Obama is not the first president to raise the question of whether or not he is a genuine US citizen.

Obama didn't raise the question, the idiot birthers did.  Its obvious to me that facts didn't matter, it was all simply a feeble attempt at political gain. Trump, on the other hand, has his own motives for continuing this nonsense.

Interestingly enough the first person to question is the President was a natural born citizen was a Clinton operative who filed a lawsuit in Philadelphia during the Democratic primaries. I get a good laugh when I hear the various talking heads claiming that the whole issue was started by the GOP. For the record I've never bought into that nonsense but in some regards the President made it an issue by not releasing his long form birth certificate until three years later.

[vette5573]

I read about that, but didnt see the series. Whats it called?

http://www.ovguide.com/john-adams-9202a8c04000641f8000000006bd7ddd#

[Chris]

I read about that, but didnt see the series. Whats it called?

http://www.ovguide.com/john-adams-9202a8c04000641f8000000006bd7ddd#

Available through Netflix, if you subscribe to that service.

Highly recommended.

[AZGiantFan]

If anyone can be said to have been the author of the Constitution it would be James Madison, with its philosophical father being the English philosopher Edmund Burke.

That's right about Madison. But I believe you are thinking of John Locke, not Edmund Burke.

You are right - I got them confused.  Thanks for the correction.

[AZGiantFan]

What brought us all here was a love of football in general and the NY Giants in particular.  In that context it is hard enough to keep everyone on a civil, intelligent plane.  As we have seen, political strife will inevitably result when current event or historical events are discussed.  That damages relationships that are sometimes strained as it is, when we limit ourselves to football.  There are already some people I will look at a little differently, not because of the content of their opinion but because of the way it is expressed.

There are many many places on the internet where non-football discussions occur.  It isn't as if there is a shortage of places where people can spout off about their political beliefs.  Why duplicate that here?  Or at least if we are going to duplicate it, why do so in the midst of the board devoted to the stated purpose of this place?  Having a long thread, even one with some positive aspects, doesn't make it a good thread.  Gresham's law says that bad money drives out good money.  Bad posting drives out good posting.  Quality of posts and threads is more important than quantity.

IMO the experiment has been a failure and should be terminated ASAP before serious damage is done.

[gregf]

Thanks Vette and Chris for the tip on the Adams series. I will definetly check it out on Net Flix. I enjoyed learning about our highway sustem and some other posts on this thread. I find the whole thing interesting and appropriate in the offseason.  There Re a lot of intelligent and myriad perspectives to learn from.

[BlueMoshik]

In all honesty, it is impossible, not to mention disingenuous, to make such judgements about our presidents without talking about partisan politics. All these presidents whether one likes them or not are and have been politicians, representatives of political parties. It's like asking who in your view is the best doctor you've ever had but please avoid talking about medicine.

That said, a discussion of partisan politics can be lively without devolving into cheap shots, conspiracy theories, and personal gripes. It can - but not on this thread, alas.

[St Marys]

Nice "experiment", properly received on the whole, IMHuO.   My input, a perspective from the other side of the Atlantic.   Based purely on what they have done for the world.

Clinton, Reagan, Roosevelt - Northern Ireland and the Balkans, the collapse of the Soviet Union and Communism and isolationist America enters WWII to save the world from Fascism.

[XNYrnLA]

Game changers through conviction:
Washington
Lincoln
Reagan

[murderhill]

I think this topic met the mods hidden agenda- can a high road great president discussion ultimately take the low road of partisan politics. Well done.

Where's the low road?

All I've seen is lively but largely polite discussion.  Opinions are shared and facts are supplied. 

I agree with LENN... A+++++

I don't know if we've hit the low road Jimbo but we have gone off topic and partisan and biased opinions have emerged.  Mine for example: my opinion is that Reagan is one of the worst presidents ever.  I know that he is reveared as a great president and I knew that my negative comment would stir up someone or another and you managed to get stirred up.  AND you mistakenly identified Obama as my guy.  A lot of mention about Obama in a thread about greatest president.  How can we include him in this topic?  He's not great by any standard and he's not finished.

The Obama discussion takes us down the low road. 

You made your point regarding the topic on the 1st page Lincoln= greatest, Reagan= favorite   Fine!

Great President?  Just Google the two words and you come up with Lincoln and FDR at the top of most lists.  But Ed asks why.

In reading the comments here it seems that success in warfare is a basis for greatness.  I believe that with the exception of Washington, Jefferson, Madison and FDR, the basis is a false one, does not apply and eliminates them from greatness but Presidents use war and military incursions as a form of foreign policy.  If they are successful, they are also successful at the polls as well.  As a Vietnam war vet I am cynical but this is a tried and true method of getting reelected.

Another reason from commenters as a basis for greatness centers around the written statements that were so inspirational like Jefferson's Declaration of Independence.  "All men are created equal"  well, in Jefferson's case, not black or red men not women, not men without property.  I'm an egalitarian.   That equal stuff is really important to me.  I like the guy but he was a classist and a hypocrite.  Not great.  Madison, Now there was a possible candidate for great President- well he was a slave owner.  Adams was great  Well He actually sold out the french after they assisted us during the revolutionary war. 

The abuse of minorities is one of my measures for declaring a president as not great.  Blacks, Hispanics, Indians, women, Japanese and so on.  Most presidents don't do well here.

Administration!  That's what Presidents are supposed to do.  Yeah!  If a president is a good administrator, runs the operation of government well, mans the cabinet well, appoints unbiased, nonpolitical judges to the high courts, works well with Congress and the Senate, well that's the primary function of a president.  If he does that well, he (or she) belongs on the list of great presidents.  In my life, Clinton and Eisenhower come to mind.  In essence, both were moderate Republicans to me.  Yeah I know, Bill Clinton was a Dem.  I say that if it walks like a duck

[vette5573]

What brought us all here was a love of football in general and the NY Giants in particular.  In that context it is hard enough to keep everyone on a civil, intelligent plane.  As we have seen, political strife will inevitably result when current event or historical events are discussed.  That damages relationships that are sometimes strained as it is, when we limit ourselves to football.  There are already some people I will look at a little differently, not because of the content of their opinion but because of the way it is expressed.

There are many many places on the internet where non-football discussions occur.  It isn't as if there is a shortage of places where people can spout off about their political beliefs.  Why duplicate that here?  Or at least if we are going to duplicate it, why do so in the midst of the board devoted to the stated purpose of this place?  Having a long thread, even one with some positive aspects, doesn't make it a good thread.  Gresham's law says that bad money drives out good money.  Bad posting drives out good posting.  Quality of posts and threads is more important than quantity.

IMO the experiment has been a failure and should be terminated ASAP before serious damage is done.

Rich, it wasn't a failure. It was a learning experience. A lot came out of this trial thread. You see if it's decided and I mean if, that a current events board will be created, we know now exactly what to do to give it any chance of success. Your comment about how you will look at some people is a definite red flag for not having NFT's on the football board.

I happen to agree with a lot of what you said here. Thanks for the input and thanks for everyone else who gave their opinion about this.

I haven't seen any fighting or personal attacks here. That's a positive outcome.

I think it's safe to let it play out. At least for another day.

[king of the bronx]

What made Reagan in the eyes of some a great president?

Damn if I know, the man was an extreme racist, and dedicated fascist. He had nothing but contempt for people of color, and of middle class and lower in our republic. In spite of his reputation of being a tough guy he ordered Marines to be sent into the middle east, and not to fire a shot. So the enemy drove a truck loaded with explosives right up to the Marine Barracks and killed our solders. The Marines are not an offensive  force they do not go into battle to wait they go into battle to take over and clean up. Ronald Reagan was nothing more than a modern day closet nazi as far as I am concerned, just like many people these days , who hide behind the term of CONSERVATIVE. L ets call a SPADE a SPADE.

[king of the bronx]

A tie between FDR and Bill Clinton

[JimboWHO]

What made Reagan in the eyes of some a great president?

Damn if I know, the man was an extreme racist, and dedicated fascist. He had nothing but contempt for people of color, and of middle class and lower in our republic. In spite of his reputation of being a tough guy he ordered Marines to be sent into the middle east, and not to fire a shot. So the enemy drove a truck loaded with explosives right up to the Marine Barracks and killed our solders. The Marines are not an offensive  force they do not go into battle to wait they go into battle to take over and clean up. Ronald Reagan was nothing more than a modern day closet nazi as far as I am concerned, just like many people these days , who hide behind the term of CONSERVATIVE. L ets call a SPADE a SPADE.

The was a poster earlier in this thread (my apologies for not looking up the specifics) who wondered to his himself whether one or two people has mistakenly stopped taking their meds. 


JJM

[JimboWHO]

I think this topic met the mods hidden agenda- can a high road great president discussion ultimately take the low road of partisan politics. Well done.

Where's the low road?

All I've seen is lively but largely polite discussion.  Opinions are shared and facts are supplied. 

I agree with LENN... A+++++

I don't know if we've hit the low road Jimbo but we have gone off topic and partisan and biased opinions have emerged.  Mine for example: my opinion is that Reagan is one of the worst presidents ever.  I know that he is reveared as a great president and I knew that my negative comment would stir up someone or another and you managed to get stirred up.  AND you mistakenly identified Obama as my guy.  A lot of mention about Obama in a thread about greatest president.  How can we include him in this topic?  He's not great by any standard and he's not finished.

The Obama discussion takes us down the low road. 

You made your point regarding the topic on the 1st page Lincoln= greatest, Reagan= favorite   Fine!

Great President?  Just Google the two words and you come up with Lincoln and FDR at the top of most lists.  But Ed asks why.

In reading the comments here it seems that success in warfare is a basis for greatness.  I believe that with the exception of Washington, Jefferson, Madison and FDR, the basis is a false one, does not apply and eliminates them from greatness but Presidents use war and military incursions as a form of foreign policy.  If they are successful, they are also successful at the polls as well.  As a Vietnam war vet I am cynical but this is a tried and true method of getting reelected.

Another reason from commenters as a basis for greatness centers around the written statements that were so inspirational like Jefferson's Declaration of Independence.  "All men are created equal"  well, in Jefferson's case, not black or red men not women, not men without property.  I'm an egalitarian.   That equal stuff is really important to me.  I like the guy but he was a classist and a hypocrite.  Not great.  Madison, Now there was a possible candidate for great President- well he was a slave owner.  Adams was great  Well He actually sold out the french after they assisted us during the revolutionary war. 

The abuse of minorities is one of my measures for declaring a president as not great.  Blacks, Hispanics, Indians, women, Japanese and so on.  Most presidents don't do well here.

Administration!  That's what Presidents are supposed to do.  Yeah!  If a president is a good administrator, runs the operation of government well, mans the cabinet well, appoints unbiased, nonpolitical judges to the high courts, works well with Congress and the Senate, well that's the primary function of a president.  If he does that well, he (or she) belongs on the list of great presidents.  In my life, Clinton and Eisenhower come to mind.  In essence, both were moderate Republicans to me.  Yeah I know, Bill Clinton was a Dem.  I say that if it walks like a duck