In political science, historical rankings of Presidents of the United States are surveys conducted in order to construct rankings of the success of individuals who have served as President of the United States. Ranking systems are usually based on surveys of academic historians and political scientists or popular opinion. The rankings focus on the presidential achievements, leadership qualities, failures and faults (such as corruption). General findings George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin D. Roosevelt are consistently ranked at the top of the lists. Often ranked just below those three are Presidents Thomas Jefferson and Theodore Roosevelt. The remaining places in the top 10 are often rounded out by Harry S. Truman, Woodrow Wilson, Dwight Eisenhower, and Andrew Jackson.
I'll thank you to not spam my thread with popularity polls it's irrelevant. I've already admitted the asshole has Saintly status with the ignorant public.
I wish both of them harm, although in Bush's case it would be a few years too late to do any good. They are both big government, budget crashing whores who's terms will end up being two consecutive train wrecks.... You guys are all so short sighted engaging in this partisan bickering. I don't know why it doesn't occur to you guys that they are both more or less the same party. The difference between obama and bush is healthcare. The rest of the differences are quite trivial. Yet you guys are so emotionally attached to these meaningless little partisan mud slinging sessions, you are addicted to them. So sad. Oh well, what can you do... people are stupid...
This country is based on popularity.The most popular people win elections and run the country,that is the essence of the United States of America
Health care isn't the only difference between Bush and Obama,I wouldn't expect you to know that because people are stupid
audio links of the author various subjects http://mises.org/media.aspx?action=author&Id=425 Secession and the American Experience Mises Media: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 by Thomas E. Woods, Jr. http://mises.org/media/1863 Secession and War Mises Media: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 by Thomas E. Woods, Jr. http://mises.org/media/1869
Truly ashamed that Pabst is going to the grave so pissed off at people who do not look, act, or think like him.
Yeah sure.... and the bill for rights was just for show... They wanted a workable federal government a little stronger than the articles. The convention was likely to breakup without a constitution at all But for the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights as the first 10 amendments were called.... is proof they did not want a strong federal government... Case and point is the 9th. Ninth Amendment â Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.