Best Presidents

[denverd0n]

Okay, so to get this out of the other thread, and give it one of its own, who do you think qualifies to be listed as our "best" presidents?

For me, Washington is at the top of the list. Absolutely and without any contest. Mainly because he is the only person in the entire history of the world, that I can think of, who was offered virtually absolute power and turned it down. He did what he felt was his duty, got the country onto its feet and going in the direction that he thought was right, and then he voluntarily handed the power off to someone else. That is just really WAAAAY more amazing of an act that most people realize.

After him, I'd put Jefferson and Lincoln as the next two. Behind them, for me at least, there are several "maybes". Guys like Madison, Monroe, Wilson, Truman, Reagan.

I would also add that, in my opinion, considering how few presidents we've really had, the list of "best" should not extend beyond about four or five names.

[jnschwie]

Jefferson is high on my list, Lincoln is a maybe.

I'll throw Ike in as a maybe, since I'm not convinced otherwise.

Reagan is near the top.

[Renegade_Jeeper]

ronald reagan numba one
close second has to be Franklin D. Rosevelt
With clinton last dead last

[denverd0n]

Okay, I'll bite. Why Roosevelt?

[team D.A.T.A.]

Washington
Lincoln
Reagan
Jefferson
Truman
Roosevelt

[Renegade_Jeeper]

he lead our country through two turbulant times the depression and ww2 and he did get elected for 3 terms

[sames]

even though I am conservative, I would add FDR. The new deal was necessary at the time and he recognized the threat posed by Germany and Japan when many called for us to stay out of it. FDR did everything but subvert congress (some say he did) to aid Britain. I believe the GI Bill is more responsible for our economic progress after the war than any other single thing. Many of the men that went to college after the war on the Bill would have never gotten the opportunity and that huge pool of talent was not wasted.

[jnschwie]

FDR fans -Do the current "ends" justify the "ends" at the time?

[denverd0n]

The new deal was necessary at the time...
I think that's debatable. I don't deny that things needed to be done, but I think that the creation of the modern welfare state lies solely on the shoulders of FDR, and that he is therefore responsible for a HUGE percentage of our current problems. I think the depression could have been handled with much less radical programs than FDR implemented.

...and he recognized the threat posed by Germany and Japan when many called for us to stay out of it.
Yep. That one you've got to give him. Getting involved in WWII was absolutely inescapable for us, almost right from the very start. Like Churchill, FDR realized that Hitler could not be appeased or ignored.

I am not familiar enough with the origins of the GI Bill to know if he really deserves credit for it, but okay.

I will say that, as far as I'm concerned, the simple fact that he got elected four times (not three) doesn't count for anything at all.

[HollywoodCTS]

How can Lincoln only be a maybe? He only reunified us, freed the slaves. If he would have lived i bet reunification after the war would have been better and faster

[jnschwie]

How can Lincoln only be a maybe? He only reunified us, freed the slaves. If he would have lived i bet reunification after the war would have been better and faster

While that is the good of his presidency, he caused a drastic decrease in states' rights.

He's middle of the road for me.

[sames]

I only have my fathers recollections of the era, but he believes, and he is a former Republican politician, that FDR did not intend for the new deal to last forever. One could argue that politicians should know that entitlements never die, but that was very early on in the entitlement arena. Also the original social security was not a bad idea, it was prostituted into additional entitlements after FDR. I guess that is a good reason to be wary of politicians bearing gifts that we must pay for, they never go away and they always cost much more than originally thought.

[Pilot]

How can Lincoln only be a maybe? He only reunified us, freed the slaves. If he would have lived i bet reunification after the war would have been better and faster

I think Lincoln helped start the downward spiral in our nation. I'm a conservative Republican, and think Lincoln was a very wise man, however, the Civil War was a travesty to state's rights in which our entire nation is based on through the Constitution. The South was going to abolish slavery anyway. The war was about state's rights versus a strong Federal gov't. The Feds won, so now look at what we have, a huge welfare state instead of self government. Its exactly opposite to what the Founding Father's wanted.

I may be a Yankee by birth, but my heart lies in Dixie!

My Favorite Presidents:

Reagan
Nixon (Yes, Nixon!)
Washington
Jackson
Teddy Roosevelt

[Oscar]

Hmm I would have to say Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Harrison (because he wasnt around long enough to screw anything up) both Roosevelts and Reagan.

[Oscar]

Hey as was looking over all the presidents answer me this. Why didn't Arthur have a VP?

[Renegade_Jeeper]

cause he was a pimp

[denverd0n]

Because he was the vice president, and only became president when Garfield was killed. At the time there were laws on the books for presidential succession, but not for vice presidential succession. So, when he became president, there wasn't any process in place, or any agreement, on how to replace the now-vacant spot of vice president.

[Oscar]

Hmm strange I guess Johnson was the same way

[jnschwie]

For me, Washington is at the top of the list. Absolutely and without any contest. Mainly because he is the only person in the entire history of the world, that I can think of, who was offered virtually absolute power and turned it down. He did what he felt was his duty, got the country onto its feet and going in the direction that he thought was right, and then he voluntarily handed the power off to someone else. That is just really WAAAAY more amazing of an act that most people realize.


I've been thinking about this some now.

This absolute power is exactly what they were fighting against. It would not have been in his psyche to do otherwise. That the sheeple of the time wanted him as a "king" illustrates their folly, not his wisdom.

Jefferson was the visionary of the founding fathers, IMO. Washington had the resolve. I'd probably edge GW to #2 behind Jefferson. Also helping Jefferson was that he was extremely interesting. A true renaissance man.

[supremebeholder]

The first Roosevelt goes at the top of the list and the second one goes at the bottom.

[CannonBall]

Jefferson at the top.

OMG FLAME SUIT
worst presidents include:

Lincoln for starting a war to deny states rights.

FDR = worst president ever

I would also put andrew jackson down at the bottom for denying rights to indians and the march of tears. The best thing he did was kill the national bank, but that was out of spite.
-Nate

[Steve]

Good thread Don. :thumbsup: I'd probably come up with a list very similar or the same as yours.

I only have my fathers recollections of the era, but he believes, and he is a former Republican politician, that FDR did not intend for the new deal to last forever. One could argue that politicians should know that entitlements never die...

Congresspersons, at least nowadays, look no farther than the next election. They have no vision whatsoever about the future. That's what scares me the most about health care "reform." Any kind of federalized system that might get implemented will be permanent, regardless of how good or how bad.

While the New Deal may (or may not) have been good at the time depending on your perspective, it's morphed the U.S. into a welfare state that keeps getting worse. :thumbsdown:

[denverd0n]

This absolute power is exactly what they were fighting against. It would not have been in his psyche to do otherwise.
True, but that could also be said of many other historical figures who, nonetheless, when actually presented with absolute power found its appeal to be too great to resist.

Robespierre and Bonaparte are both examples from the French revolution--fighting to overthrow the absolutism of the monarchy, yet seduced by power themselves. There are numerous examples among communist leaders, who supposedly fight for the rights of the common man, but are then corrupted by the power the communist system unavoidably hands them. Castro is probably the best example of that. If you read his writings, or have watched his early speeches, I honestly think that he had noble intentions at the beginning, but power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely... Except for Washington.

[Pilot]

FDR did not intend for the new deal to last forever

Just goes to show, once you hand out entitlements to people, and give the Feds a huge revenue source through taxes, then it is nearly impossible to reverse. The Federal Income Tax was supposed to be temporary too.

"The origin of the income tax on individuals is generally cited as the passage of the 16th Amendment, passed by Congress on July 2, 1909, and ratified February 3, 1913; however, its history actually goes back even further. During the Civil War Congress passed the Revenue Act of 1861 which included a tax on personal incomes to help pay war expenses. The tax was repealed ten years later. However, in 1894 Congress enacted a flat rate Federal income tax, which was ruled unconstitutional the following year by the U.S. Supreme Court because it was a direct tax not apportioned according to the population of each state. The 16th amendment, ratified in 1913, removed this objection by allowing the Federal government to tax the income of individuals without regard to the population of each State."

For more detail go to: http://www.loc.gov/rr/business/hottopic/irs_history.html

So we have Lincoln's Civil War to thank for the Federal Income Tax which was supposed to just be a war tax.

[CLYDE]

How can Lincoln only be a maybe? He only reunified us, freed the slaves. If he would have lived i bet reunification after the war would have been better and faster
I completely disagree with this, Lincoln divided this country like no other, bear in mind the war of northern aggression was about states rights, not about slavery, slavery was doomed either way with the industrial revolution, and would have ended very soon either way. Reunification wasnt wanted by half of this country, but it was forced on them anyway, to this day a bad idea, and did more to hurt states rights than anything else ever has. Lincoln went against the constitution as no other president had before him, which really opened pandoras box for future presidents to take advantage of.

[CLYDE]

I think Lincoln helped start the downward spiral in our nation. I'm a conservative Republican, and think Lincoln was a very wise man, however, the Civil War was a travesty to state's rights in which our entire nation is based on through the Constitution. The South was going to abolish slavery anyway. The war was about state's rights versus a strong Federal gov't. The Feds won, so now look at what we have, a huge welfare state instead of self government. Its exactly opposite to what the Founding Father's wanted.

I amy be a Yankee by birth, but my heart lies in Dixie!

My Favorite Presidents:

Reagan
Nixon (Yes, Nixon!)
Washington
Jackson
Teddy Roosevelt
Beat me to it, and yes I too was a Nixon fan :D

[CannonBall]

I'm 24 and simply do NOT understand the love of Reagan. I understand he was a great speaker and inspirational, but he gave amnesty, increased spending, increased the national debt, etc. He did take on the commies and terrorists, but communism was doomed. Just looking back on his fiscal policies, I don't see modern politicians comparing themselves to reagan as always being a good thing.
-Nate

[denverd0n]

...was about states rights, not about slavery...
That's about the same as saying that Clinton's impeachment was about sex, not about perjury. It was about both. And the only state's right that the Civil War was about was the "right" to impose slavery on people! There were no other rights that were at issue.

Slavery was a contentious issue even before the nation was formed. From the very beginning, a large percentage of the population felt that slavery was fundamentally in opposition to the founding principles of the nation. And they were right, by the way!

The contention continued and built throughout the 1800s, until it finally reached a head. The citizens of the northern states finally decided that the United States could no longer tolerate some states choosing to pretend that people weren't really people, if they had the wrong colored skin.

Now, we can argue about whether or not a better solution would have been to allow the southern states to secede, but saying it wasn't about slavery is pretty obtuse. It was about several things, but slavery was the single most important issue that precipitated the war. Without the issue of slavery, there absolutely would NOT have ever been a Civil War.

[denverd0n]

[Reagan] increased spending, increased the national debt, etc.
Actually, every year that he was in office he proposed a budget that included LESS spending and LESS debt than Congress eventually passed. They ALWAYS spent more than he wanted them to. It is Congress that has ultimate control over these things, not the president.

[Waifer2112]

Actually, every year that he was in office he proposed a budget that included LESS spending and LESS debt than Congress eventually passed. They ALWAYS spent more than he wanted them to. It is Congress that has ultimate control over these things, not the president.

But still an excellent point about amnesty given under his presidency. Especially with so many on this board saying it's the single biggest thing that needs fixed in this nation, I don't see how they can then turn around and say he was one of the greatest.

???

[CannonBall]

Seriously, I'm not trying to be a prick about this either, I'm just curious, because I was ~5 when he left office. The guy next to me just said he wishes reagan was running again... I'm not so sure that would be my first choice.
-Nate

[CLYDE]

Things I liked about Reagan. He was tough as nails, when he said something, he followed thru with it as far as he could, he didnt promise one thing, and then go another direction. He spoke as palinly as he could to people, not in lawyerese, or political terms, He wanted to be understood by people. He wasnt a career politician, and didnt act like a politician.
He didnt take crap from anyone, The Iranians knew it, remember that the hostages were released the day he took office, I will never forget that.
For all that I would have chosen him as My favorite for his joking about outlawing the soviet union, and the bombing starting in 5 minutes :flipoff2:

[CLYDE]

That's about the same as saying that Clinton's impeachment was about sex, not about perjury. It was about both. And the only state's right that the Civil War was about was the "right" to impose slavery on people! There were no other rights that were at issue.

Slavery was a contentious issue even before the nation was formed. From the very beginning, a large percentage of the population felt that slavery was fundamentally in opposition to the founding principles of the nation. And they were right, by the way!

The contention continued and built throughout the 1800s, until it finally reached a head. The citizens of the northern states finally decided that the United States could no longer tolerate some states choosing to pretend that people weren't really people, if they had the wrong colored skin.

Now, we can argue about whether or not a better solution would have been to allow the southern states to secede, but saying it wasn't about slavery is pretty obtuse. It was about several things, but slavery was the single most important issue that precipitated the war. Without the issue of slavery, there absolutely would NOT have ever been a Civil War.
The south could have saved slavery at any time by laying down its arms, The main points of contention wernt about that tho, It was about the fed being able to impose itself as the boss of the states. Look up Nullification, and states rights before you make that arguement that it was all about slavery,, its just not so. Slavery Was an issue, but it was not THE issue. Econcomy, import/export, and taxes/tariffs were as much or more a part of it than slavery. Schools dont teach this stuff when you first learn about it, so many people today believe it as gospel truth, But there was way more involved, and with a little digging its easy to find. Remember it is the victor who writes history.

[denverd0n]

Remember it is the victor who writes history.
Actually, that too is a common misconception. A whole lot of history gets written by the losers, usually trying to justify their actions.

I have studied history extensively. Not just reading popular books, but in pursuit of a masters degree. It is a plain fact that if it weren't for the slavery issue there never would have been a Civil War. You can deny that all you'd like, as did most of the southerners at the time, but it doesn't change the facts.

[Mack]

No particular order, and why:

Regan- Reganomics
FDR- New Deal speaks volumes to me.
Grant- For giving me hope that as an alcoholic, I can one day be president. :D

[Gags]

True, but that could also be said of many other historical figures who, nonetheless, when actually presented with absolute power found its appeal to be too great to resist.

Robespierre and Bonaparte are both examples from the French revolution--fighting to overthrow the absolutism of the monarchy, yet seduced by power themselves. There are numerous examples among communist leaders, who supposedly fight for the rights of the common man, but are then corrupted by the power the communist system unavoidably hands them. Castro is probably the best example of that. If you read his writings, or have watched his early speeches, I honestly think that he had noble intentions at the beginning, but power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely... Except for Washington.

Ah yes, The Committee of Public Safety...

A cookie if you can tell me where "to the lantern" comes from.

Hijack off.

[CLYDE]

Actually, that too is a common misconception. A whole lot of history gets written by the losers, usually trying to justify their actions.

I have studied history extensively. Not just reading popular books, but in pursuit of a masters degree. It is a plain fact that if it weren't for the slavery issue there never would have been a Civil War. You can deny that all you'd like, as did most of the southerners at the time, but it doesn't change the facts.
I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one, I too am a student of history, but for personal reasons, not for any sort of degree, and have read things written from both perspectives. But since we both are a bit young to have been there, we can only make our choices based on the texts we chose to read and believe. I can see that niether of us is going to have a change of heart over the others beliefs:D

[Oscar]

Well lets wait for DaJudge and Whitey I bet they have first hand knowledge

[CLYDE]

Most likley:flipoff2:

[jnschwie]

FDR- New Deal speaks volumes to me.


I am disappointed.

[jnschwie]

I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one, I too am a student of history, but for personal reasons, not for any sort of degree, and have read things written from both perspectives. But since we both are a bit young to have been there, we can only make our choices based on the texts we chose to read and believe. I can see that niether of us is going to have a change of heart over the others beliefs:D

Why can't it be that one side believes one thing and the other side believes another thing?


That said, since the North were the "aggressors" I guess it stands to reason their opinion on why THEY attacked > anyone else's.

[denverd0n]

I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one...
Sounds okay to me. You are entitled to your opinion, and I am entitled to mine. While it might be amusing to speculate, no one has any way of knowing with absolute certainty what would have happened if slavery had NOT been an issue.

[denverd0n]

Ah yes, The Committee of Public Safety... A cookie if you can tell me where "to the lantern" comes from.
You got me on that one, so no cookie for me.

[bsaunder]

That's about the same as saying that Clinton's impeachment was about sex, not about perjury. It was about both. And the only state's right that the Civil War was about was the "right" to impose slavery on people! There were no other rights that were at issue.

Slavery was a contentious issue even before the nation was formed. From the very beginning, a large percentage of the population felt that slavery was fundamentally in opposition to the founding principles of the nation. And they were right, by the way!

The contention continued and built throughout the 1800s, until it finally reached a head. The citizens of the northern states finally decided that the United States could no longer tolerate some states choosing to pretend that people weren't really people, if they had the wrong colored skin.

Now, we can argue about whether or not a better solution would have been to allow the southern states to secede, but saying it wasn't about slavery is pretty obtuse. It was about several things, but slavery was the single most important issue that precipitated the war. Without the issue of slavery, there absolutely would NOT have ever been a Civil War.


Admitted ? you?ve hit one of my pet peeve?s, but the Civil war was in absolutely not about slavery; at least no more than the Iraq war being only about Saddam treating his people poorly.

The slavery slant was purely PR posturing by Lincoln to help him out in a war that was supposed to be won easily, but he was getting the tar kicked out of him instead. Since the yanks were the victors ? they skewed the teaching of history to make the yanks look better and have the ?moral highground?; pretty standard practice and done almost in realtime these days.

The fact of the matter is that slavery was still legal at a federal level at the beginning of the war ? and that many northern states did have slaves and continued to do so through-out the war (instead of primarily providing grunt labor, they were primarily personal servants; still slaves being treated as property). Slavery was actually still legal at the end of the war as well ? the emancipation proclamation only freed slaves in aggressor states ? if a state was not an aggressor state then it was legal to have slaves. Slavery was not ?outlawed? until the 13th amendment was passed in 1865; which probably would not have passed if Lincoln had not been assassinated.

I?ll agree that Lincoln?s actions accelerated the movement to free slaves and I?ll agree that slavery was a point of contention; but that is as far as I?ll take that agreement.

edit - so I came in late an others have responded like wise; guess I'll have to join Clyde's camp on this one. I've been a bit of a history fanatic myself ( not enough time these days) and have studied the civil war quite extensively - including helping several friends write their dissertations about it. Several have been on exactly what would have happened it the war did not occur - most of the papers I am knowledgeable about postulate that slavery had a max of 10 years left, the major impacts would have been on modern day taxes, tarrifs, import/export, interstate commerce, and trade unions.

[bsaunder]

to the op -

Jefferson
GW

maybe wilson

[denverd0n]

slavery had a max of 10 years left
I agree with that. Where we're going to have to agree to disagree is on what the significance of that is. A lot of people point to this fact and insist, "see! the Civil War couldn't have been about slavery, because slavery was going away anyhow!" Nope, sorry, that's a logical fallacy.

The fact that it was on its way out anyway does not change the fact that the southern states desperately wanted to hold onto it as long as they could. Nor does it change the fact that a huge percentage of northern citizens were adamantly opposed to it.

As for northern states allowing slavery... uh, no. It is true that there was no federal law prohibiting it until after the war. The fact is, though, that almost all of the northern states prohibited it with state level laws. I would have to go back and look up the exceptions, but it was only a handful of northern states that did not already have state level laws prohibiting slavery before the war began. By the time the war was over it was down to only one or two. That was, in fact, what the Dred Scott decision was all about--state level prohibition of slavery.

[bsaunder]

I agree with that. Where we're going to have to agree to disagree is on what the significance of that is. A lot of people point to this fact and insist, "see! the Civil War couldn't have been about slavery, because slavery was going away anyhow!" Nope, sorry, that's a logical fallacy.

The fact that it was on its way out anyway does not change the fact that the southern states desperately wanted to hold onto it as long as they could. Nor does it change the fact that a huge percentage of northern citizens were adamantly opposed to it.

As for northern states allowing slavery... uh, no. It is true that there was no federal law prohibiting it until after the war. The fact is, though, that almost all of the northern states prohibited it with state level laws. I would have to go back and look up the exceptions, but it was only a handful of northern states that did not already have state level laws prohibiting slavery before the war began. By the time the war was over it was down to only one or two. That was, in fact, what the Dred Scott decision was all about--state level prohibition of slavery.
I'm sure Saddam only had ~10 year left too:flipoff2: - I agree it is a logical fallacy to use it going away as a reason against it. I however view it as a logical fallacy to list it as a primary reason for it.

Most of the states that had outlawed slavery only had it outlawed for labor - personal servants were not considered labor. Indentured servants continued for quite a while even after the 13th amendment; primarily in Union states as well.

The primary reason I became so interested in studying the civil war was because all of my schooling taught that it was solely about slavery. Then I learned that a large number of those leading the fight for the south were also apposed to slavery...hum, must be something more to it then.....

[Mack]

I am disappointed.

You're not the first :D

[jnschwie]

I am surprised, as well.

[1984flht]

The name of your thread is a contradiction.

[Mack]

I am surprised, as well.

Still waiting on why FDR was a bad president...

[jnschwie]

You are in the wrong thread. Go over to the bad presidents thread.

[Budman]

That's about the same as saying that Clinton's impeachment was about sex, not about perjury. It was about both. And the only state's right that the Civil War was about was the "right" to impose slavery on people! There were no other rights that were at issue.

Slavery was a contentious issue even before the nation was formed. From the very beginning, a large percentage of the population felt that slavery was fundamentally in opposition to the founding principles of the nation. And they were right, by the way!

The contention continued and built throughout the 1800s, until it finally reached a head. The citizens of the northern states finally decided that the United States could no longer tolerate some states choosing to pretend that people weren't really people, if they had the wrong colored skin.

Now, we can argue about whether or not a better solution would have been to allow the southern states to secede, but saying it wasn't about slavery is pretty obtuse. It was about several things, but slavery was the single most important issue that precipitated the war. Without the issue of slavery, there absolutely would NOT have ever been a Civil War.

Admitted ? you?ve hit one of my pet peeve?s, but the Civil war was in absolutely not about slavery; at least no more than the Iraq war being only about Saddam treating his people poorly.

The slavery slant was purely PR posturing by Lincoln to help him out in a war that was supposed to be won easily, but he was getting the tar kicked out of him instead. Since the yanks were the victors ? they skewed the teaching of history to make the yanks look better and have the ?moral highground?; pretty standard practice and done almost in realtime these days.

The fact of the matter is that slavery was still legal at a federal level at the beginning of the war ? and that many northern states did have slaves and continued to do so through-out the war (instead of primarily providing grunt labor, they were primarily personal servants; still slaves being treated as property). Slavery was actually still legal at the end of the war as well ? the emancipation proclamation only freed slaves in aggressor states ? if a state was not an aggressor state then it was legal to have slaves. Slavery was not ?outlawed? until the 13th amendment was passed in 1865; which probably would not have passed if Lincoln had not been assassinated.

I?ll agree that Lincoln?s actions accelerated the movement to free slaves and I?ll agree that slavery was a point of contention; but that is as far as I?ll take that agreement.

edit - so I came in late an others have responded like wise; guess I'll have to join Clyde's camp on this one. I've been a bit of a history fanatic myself ( not enough time these days) and have studied the civil war quite extensively - including helping several friends write their dissertations about it. Several have been on exactly what would have happened it the war did not occur - most of the papers I am knowledgeable about postulate that slavery had a max of 10 years left, the major impacts would have been on modern day taxes, tarrifs, import/export, interstate commerce, and trade unions.

I'm sure Saddam only had ~10 year left too:flipoff2: - I agree it is a logical fallacy to use it going away as a reason against it. I however view it as a logical fallacy to list it as a primary reason for it.

Most of the states that had outlawed slavery only had it outlawed for labor - personal servants were not considered labor. Indentured servants continued for quite a while even after the 13th amendment; primarily in Union states as well.

The primary reason I became so interested in studying the civil war was because all of my schooling taught that it was solely about slavery. Then I learned that a large number of those leading the fight for the south were also apposed to slavery...hum, must be something more to it then.....


Go man go...

[Gags]

You got me on that one, so no cookie for me.

It was the cheer of the Sans Culotte as they hung people from the street lights (at that time called lanterns.)

[Gags]

Dwight Eisenhower was cool.

[CannonBall]

Perhaps not the most tasteful...
http://www.erichsmith.com/fdr.html

[HollywoodCTS]

Sans Culotte? Wasn't the Sans Culottes the pigtails that the chaussers grew from thier temples under their helmets? Meant that they were the elite of the French Calvary?

[Gags]

Sans Culotte? Wasn't the Sans Culottes the pigtails that the chaussers grew from thier temples under their helmets? Meant that they were the elite of the French Calvary?



Sans-culottes (French for without knee-breeches) was a term created 1790 - 1792 by the French aristocracy to describe the poorer members of the Third Estate ...

[Leon Phelps]

No particular order, and why:


Grant- For giving me hope that as an alcoholic, I can one day be president. :D


Any boozer definately falls into my top three, nothing says lovin like being "drunk at the wheel", so to speak :thumbsup:

Regan & LBJ was one sonofabitch.