@ Santa cont. (sorry, I accidentally hit "post")

"So much that during his own presidency he was chided for leading an unjust and blundering war."

He was only really criticized by the Whigs, who foolishly challenged his casus belli, a casus belli which proved to be completely correct. And how exactly was the war "blundering"? He conquered Mexico and defeated an insurgency in two years, back in the days of horses and sail-powered warships.

"A war so obviously unjust that diverse figures such as John Quincy Adams, John Calhoun and Abraham Lincoln recoiled in shock. A war against an under equipped, under organized enemy conquering land that the United States had absolutely no claim or right to."

Really? Try telling your "unjust war" argument to the 16 men under Captain Thornton who were killed on American soil by Mexican soldiers. And it's not like Polk didn't give Mexico a chance. He offered to buy New Mexico and California before the war started. And like I said, a lot of the criticism came from people challenging Polk's version of the events of April 25-26, 1846. Polk's version of what happened proved to be accurate. Mexican soldiers invaded American soil and killed Americans. How is that an unjust war?

I don't understand how you can be such a Jackson fan. The man defied a Supreme Court order in sending the Cherokees to Oklahoma. Before that he basically stole Florida from Spain, challenging civilian control of the military. He abolished the national bank, leading to decades of economic instability. Political circumstances and his age were all that kept him from becoming our Napoleon. The guy was extremely consequential to the country's development, but not someone who should be championed.

@ Santa

"And I love how Gunfighter wants to bring back Manifest Destiny. Watch out Canada the middle aged idiot fringe of the Republican Party is coming for you..."

Did I say I supported Manifest Destiny or had any desire to continue it? All I'm saying is that you can thank Polk for making America what it is and that the Mexican-American War was a legitimate war fought as retaliation for an obvious invasion of American soil.

"AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM!"

Yes, what of it? We are *the* global superpower, and I want to keep that status.

@ Invictus

"I don't understand how you can be such a Jackson fan."

I'm not. He's not even in my Top Five for American presidents. The Native American removal and his acquisition of Florida were not *good*. But you can't say the man wasn't a badass. And he is pretty damned good compared to all of the Democrats after him, with the exception of Polk.

You mean every Democrat? The Democratic party as it exists today was founded on Jackson's ideals. A bit hard on Cleveland, FDR, etc there. I'll grant he was a "bad-ass" but so was Attila the Hun. Like I said, he was consequential, but he tested the constitutional system more than most and in more troubling ways.

@ Jack_Klein

"You and people like you don't have exclusive rights to "true Americanism". The fact that you're basically being as exclusionist as possible just shows how little you understand about what America is supposed to be about."

Please elaborate. Please tell me how I'm an exclusionist. Please provide an instance of when I used the phrase "true Americanism".

"From what I've seen, you have very little understanding of the law, the Constitution, or pretty much anything that requires an education. Your understanding of history is deeply flawed, and you glorify things that are by modern standards, grossly immoral."

Once again, please provide some base for your statements. And please tell me how my glorification of American heroes is grossly immoral by modern standards. I would love a socialist to lecture me on history and morals, because socialists generally have no understanding of history or morals.

Lastly, thank you for your service. Despite the sarcasm of the above statements, I really do have the utmost respect for all veterans, regardless of their political views. What branch did you serve in?

@ largeham

"I have only this to ask. How old are you Gunfighter and have ever suffered a severe head injury?"

I'm between 25 and 35, and my only head injury was a minor concussion back in my American football days.

"You're only partially correct. The Democratic Party is now the party of gays, blacks for some reason, illegal immigrants, socialists, communists, Constitution-hating, and overall America-hating pussies. "

I misspoke. I meant to say that the Democratic Party tends to represent the interests of those groups, except for blacks. Democrats don't do shit for black people.

@ Invictus

No Democrat since Jackson (again, with the exception of Polk) should even be in the Top 20 American presidents. I stand by that statement.

Well that's ridiculous. You are ignorant of Cleveland and unappreciative of a host of others.

By "host of others", I'm going to assume that you are referring to FDR, Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson. Awful, all of them.

I'd give them Grover Cleveland. He was a pretty good President.

Give me your list of the top twenty presidents without Democrats. Maybe actually putting it in writing will make you realize how ridiculous it is to say Ford and Taft were great while FDR and Kennedy were awful (this from possibly the biggest Taft and Ford fan there is).

Alright. Here it goes:

1) Ronald Reagan
2) Ronald Reagan
3 Ron....

Just kidding. Here's my real top ten.

1) James K. Polk
1) Ronald Reagan (tie)
3) Theodore Roosevelt
4) Calvin Coolidge
5) Dwight D. Eisenhower
6) Abraham Lincoln
7) James Madison
8) James Monroe
9) Thomas Jefferson
10) Andrew Jackson
11) William McKinley
12) William Taft
13) George H.W. Bush
14) George W. Bush
15) Richard Nixon
16) Rutherford B. Hayes
17) Herbert Hoover
18) Gerald Ford
19) William Henry Harrison
20) Ulysses S. Grant

I am fully prepared to defend that list. Especially the top 15. Almost all of the Democratic Party's heroes were actually quite awful.

Yes, I really did just put George W. Bush, Calvin Coolidge, and Richard Nixon ahead of FDR.

Gunfighter you are quality mate, I don't care what people who really know you say about you, I think you're great !!
Keep supporting Romney, shout it from the rooftops !!

Your sarcasm is starting to piss me off.

Your opinion is starting to piss me off.

But I don't let it ruin my day. \o/

William Henry Harrison before FDR? Nixon before Truman? You can't seriously believe that. I'd LOVE to hear your defense of such a list.

You don't even get the order right as a GOP hack. How can Lincoln rank below Coolidge or TR? If you knew anything about Teddy Roosevelt you'd know he got the ball rolling on the progressive movement in the country and nearly destroyed the Republican party 100 years ago. And Coolidge, while good, accomplished nothing which even approaches Lincoln saving the Union and freeing the slaves. By even proposing such a position you discredit yourself.

You either put zero thought into this, or it is an elaborate troll (possible since I haven't read much of the thread). I like you most of the time Gunfighter06, but this is a ridiculous list which makes the conservative-libertarian position look absurd.

That should probably be "conservative/libertarian."

Here's my expert opinion:
Washington
Lincoln
Reagan
Coolidge
Eisenhower
Jefferson
Monroe
McKinley
Madison
Taft
Cleveland

Blab blab blah

I'm inclined to agree with Gunfighter in general, but I can't fathom how anyone comes before Lincoln in such a list. And where is George Washington??!!??!!??

Nixon belongs in the bottom of any such ranking.

And I love Coolidge--he's one of the wisest and most decent men to hold the office.

I think America is becoming too divided :P
Republicans and Democrats need to compromise. It shouldn't be so hard to make the right decision. Just sit down, have some tea, and talk about things that really matter. Not your favorite presidents and past feats.
And the idea that both parties are working FOR AMERICA must prevail in all their decisions. Even in the pretense of disagreement. All this presidential bashing seems like its discouraging the American people. Results matter a lot, but even these small things matter, too. Too much media, in comparison to the past, is being used by the political office. They are distracting and it fogs the objectivity of the American people.

The problem lays in what the right decision is. Neither side can agree at all on some issues.

@ Invictus

FDR was a douchebag near-dictator that nearly destroyed the Constitution, tried to pack the Supreme Court, set a god-awful precedent of big government (and big spending) which we are still trying to break, broke George Washington's 140-year-old two-term precedent, and whose wartime leadership was completely unremarkable.

Truman was okay until he turned into a big fat pussy with respect to the Korean War. He should have listened to General MacArthur, not fired him. Because of his indecisiveness and overall lack of balls, we slugged it out for a three year stalemate when we could have been kicking communist ass in China. Because of this, we have had to deal with two asshole communist countries in east Asia for the last 60 years. (for the record, I am not a MacArthur fan. He completely abandoned his men on Corregidor and never even set foot in Korea).

Lincoln was okay, but not spectacular. Any other president would have gone to war with the south. It's not like Lincoln did anything extraordinary as president. He simply oversaw a civil war. He wasn't even involved in the big decision-making of the war. And he is a pompous ass for calling the Mexican-American War unjust. Andrew Jackson was a southern man himself yet was just about willing to go to war with South Carolina during the Nullification Crisis.

"If you knew anything about Teddy Roosevelt you'd know he got the ball rolling on the progressive movement in the country and nearly destroyed the Republican party 100 years ago."

He also made America a world power, so I'm willing to overlook both his progressiveness and his stupid Bull Moose stunt.

@ Sbvyl36

Where the hell is Polk? He fits right in with that crowd. At least put him ahead of Madison.

@ dipplayer2004

"And where is George Washington"

I generally omit Washington from my top <number> President lists because you can't really fairly compare him with any other president, because he was the first. If you made me put him in the list, he'd be between 6 and 10. I'm not going to put him in the top five because he really did not do anything extraordinary during his actual presidency, besides setting a shitload of important presidents and his skillful handling of the Whiskey Rebellion.

"Nixon belongs in the bottom of any such ranking."

Why? If he hadn't tried to cover up Watergate (which pales in comparison to Fast and Furious in terms of lives lost), he would easily be in the top ten. After all, he ended the Vietnam War, which was a total Democrat-created clusterfuck when he took office in 1969. By 1973, he had the North screaming for mercy.

Do you know anything about the Korean War? After the Chinese intervention the UN troops were running with their tails between their legs until they reached the North/South Korean border. Also MacArthur fired on WW1 veterans in the 1930s. A great guy.

Lol at Lincoln being a pompous ass, beating on a weak neighbouring country you great.
Same thing applies to TR, beating on a decaying Spain, the Philippines and a whole host of Central and South American countries is great fun.

Nixon helped build up Vietnam. And no the North was not screaming for mercy in 73, they had simply failed to conquer the South and were licking their wounds.

"William Henry Harrison before FDR? Nixon before Truman? You can't seriously believe that. I'd LOVE to hear your defense of such a list."

William Henry Harrison had the decency to die before he did any real damage. That should put him at or near the top of any honest presidential ranking list.

with such a list, gunfighter continues to perpetrate the concept that he is a militarist and a republican hack with little actual conservative/libertarian values or principles.

"Almost all of the Democratic Party's heroes were actually quite awful. "
The Democratic Party was the 19th-century party of limited government. The GOP were often supporters of corporatism (subsidies, business-government cozy relationship) and thus were often corrupt. Grover Cleveland was maybe the most libertarian president in history and was a Democrat. Most notably, he supported free trade and lowering the tariff while Republicans later raised the tariff to (I believe) 49.5%.

Jackson, a Democrat, abolished the central bank. Van Buren, another Democrat, followed him and is likely the most libertarian president of history, perhaps describable as "Jackson without the militarism."

And we've gone over this before. The territory those U.S. soldiers were in can at most be described as disputed territory, and was more likely Mexican territory. Polk sent those soldiers to Mexico to spark an incident to create a wider war to fulfill his expansionist desire and the expansionist platform he ran on.

The only reason it was "Mexican Territory" was because the Mexicans planted a flag there, built a Mission, and subdued the natives (to one degree or another) by force. For the most part, Mexicans did not settle the land - in fact, they paid American gringos to do that for them in Texas and California (which had some unfortunate (for the Mexican government) consequences later on).

Not defending the Mexican War, which was certainly a war of territorial conquest against a nation that was ill-equipped to fight back. But to pretend that the government of Mexico had some pristine and honorable claim to the land that the Evil White(er) Males of El Norte did not is ridiculous.

Please nobody piss this guy off, he owns guns and is as thick as shit so be very careful, Romney, Romney ra ra ra !! See I'm on your side you maniac ...... just put the gun down

History: the application of current values to past events.