Thread Rating:

Poll

5 votes (4.03%)
1 vote (0.8%)
7 votes (5.64%)
62 votes (50%)
2 votes (1.61%)
33 votes (26.61%)
6 votes (4.83%)
8 votes (6.45%)

124 members have voted

Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
  • Threads: 1318
  • Posts: 21639
August 13th, 2011 at 12:39:59 PM permalink
The title pretty much says it all.
It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet.
Tiltpoul
Tiltpoul
Joined: May 5, 2010
  • Threads: 32
  • Posts: 1573
August 13th, 2011 at 1:32:55 PM permalink
Where's none of the above or other choice? Each of these presidents had problems that prevented them from being the "best." There are a few who are the "worst candidates"

Edit: I see now best president in the past 40 years... I still would like a none of the above option. Jack Valenti, president of the MPAA, MIGHT get my vote...
"One out of every four people are [morons]"- Kyle, South Park
matilda
matilda
Joined: Feb 4, 2010
  • Threads: 3
  • Posts: 317
August 13th, 2011 at 1:40:15 PM permalink
What a terrible group--so no vote. Clinton is misspelled.
pacomartin
pacomartin
Joined: Jan 14, 2010
  • Threads: 649
  • Posts: 7895
August 13th, 2011 at 3:09:11 PM permalink
In 2011, through the agency of its United States Presidency Centre [USPC], the Institute for the Study of the Americas (located in the University of Londonís School of Advanced Study) released the first ever U.K. academic survey to rate U.S. presidents. This polled the opinion of U.K. specialists in U.S. history and political studies to assess presidential performance and produced an overall rating on the basis of the responses.

Ronald Reagan Republican
Jimmy Carter Democratic
Bill Clinton Democratic
George H. W. Bush Republican
Richard Nixon Republican
Gerald Ford Republican
George W. Bush Republican

They also gave an interim assessment of Barack Obama, but his unfinished presidency was not included in the survey.
Had he been included, he would have been #1 of this group.
EvenBob
EvenBob
Joined: Jul 18, 2010
  • Threads: 423
  • Posts: 24089
August 13th, 2011 at 7:21:44 PM permalink
I read recently (was it here?) that the director of the animatronic Presidents of the US exhibit
in Disneyworld said, for about the first 9 months of Obama's presidency his character always
got a standing ovation from the huge crowd. Not anymore, now that only one that gets any
applause is Ronald Reagan. What does that tell you.
"It's not enough to succeed, your friends must fail." Gore Vidal
JohnnyQ
JohnnyQ
Joined: Nov 3, 2009
  • Threads: 213
  • Posts: 3171
August 13th, 2011 at 7:36:16 PM permalink
Reagan ? Seriously, people voted for Reagan ? C'mon.....
All around me are familiar faces / Worn out places, worn out faces / Bright and early for their daily races / Going nowhere, going nowhere - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdCLnwIkkps
Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
  • Threads: 1318
  • Posts: 21639
August 13th, 2011 at 8:45:44 PM permalink
Quote: EvenBob

...the animatronic Presidents of the US exhibit in Disneyworld said...



That is a very well done exhibit, I recommend it for everybody.
It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet.
pacomartin
pacomartin
Joined: Jan 14, 2010
  • Threads: 649
  • Posts: 7895
August 14th, 2011 at 2:05:10 AM permalink


Even Obama is a great admirer of Reagan

There are proposals to put his face on currency, most likely the $50 bill.
rdw4potus
rdw4potus
Joined: Mar 11, 2010
  • Threads: 80
  • Posts: 7042
August 16th, 2011 at 7:13:20 AM permalink
Quote: pacomartin



Even Obama is a great admirer of Reagan

There are proposals to put his face on currency, most likely the $50 bill.



Grant is a wanker, and his face should never have been put on currency in the first place. But that mocked up $50 looks like monopoly money. And, really, aren't there presidents (FDR, Johnson, etc.) who should be on bills if for no other reason than they've caused us to print so much of it?
"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett
pacomartin
pacomartin
Joined: Jan 14, 2010
  • Threads: 649
  • Posts: 7895
August 18th, 2011 at 7:31:50 AM permalink
Quote: rdw4potus

Grant is a wanker, and his face should never have been put on currency in the first place. But that mocked up $50 looks like monopoly money. And, really, aren't there presidents (FDR, Johnson, etc.) who should be on bills if for no other reason than they've caused us to print so much of it?



Grant has never been thought of very highly as long as I have been alive. I don't know how he was thought of in 1913 (36 years after his presidency) when they first put him on the $50 gold certificate. We are now about 32 years after Reagan's presidency.

Although we obviously printed more money in WWII as we sent so many men overseas, I don't think of JFK as the start of the mass printing of currency. There seemed to be a lot more printed under Nixon.

At the end of LBJ's term we were circulating about $250 per capita in this country of notes and coin ( of which $25 per capita was circulating overseas). The decision was made early in Nixon's presidency to remove the banknotes of denomination higher than $100 (the last new ones had been printed in 1946). Of course, Nixon, ended the gold standard.

We just passed $1 trillion in circulation of fiat money this year.

  • Jump to: