1- Jimmy Carter    Honest, humanitarian, intellectual, intelligent

2- Ronald Reagan   Faith in his role as president, a straight-forward personality, consistent and stable

3- Billy Clinton      Intelligent, intellectual. If it weren´t for his indecency he would be on the top of this list.

who ranked them?

you forgot to add " killer " to them

If we follow your reasoning all our Sultans were killers too. Nevertheless, we Turks are extremely proud of them. Almost any  political leader is involved this way or another in the deaths of people either intentionally or through omission or ignorance.

Hmm, I would agree with Reagan..but Carter..  you are kidding right?

how can you compare the monarchs of the medieval times to the elected presidents of the 21st century?

It was ok to kill people in the 15th century, today it is not, and how do you know that "Turks are extremely proud of them"?

I don`t think I`m proud of Vahdettin. if you are, it`s your choice.

Carter was that sun tanned peanut farmer, right?

One of the dumbest comment I have ever seen here for a long time...

What a brainless comment!!

yeah it`s more so when it is said by someone whose brain is in his genitals. 

Jealous?  

now this is what I call "a brainless comment"

But you definitely sounded like  

 I base my argument on the fact that human nature has essentially remained the same. You said you are not proud of Vahdettin and this is in line with the view of the general public - people are proud of victors.

A mirror reflects light in only one direction. Ask Serbs or Bulgarians about Ottomans, most of them will use words of hatred since it was their blood that was shed. Ask this question to a MHP supporter, and he can fill pages singing praises of them. A mirror will never fool you, it will never let you receive light beams from other directions unless you turn your own mirror yourself.

One of the posters in this thread supports  Reagan. She will probably support most presidents belonging to the political party she has always voted for. She will probably disdain the leaders from the opposition party. Again she probably believes in the doctrines of the political party she is supporting as if she established that party herself. In the political world out there, a completely different game is played.

My motto is: you can defend whatever cause you like but don´t forget to turn your mirror every now and then.

If I was to make a decision about them possibly I would do as :

1- Billy Clinton 

2- Jimmy Carter 

3-nill..

I think Bill Clinton was the most intelligent one and as far as Ronald Reagan is concerned he  did not strike anybody as a clever person to be honest..But somehow, he was the president who forced  the soviet-block to collapse..

 Yes..the peanut farmer. Sadly, Carter was admired more for his efforts after his presidency than while he was in the White House.  It appears anyone can be chosen for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Hmm, I would say bringing down communism alone  would take a clever a person. 

  So you think I always vote for my party?  Hmm, your assumtion isn´t accurate Vineyard.   I´m a little more vested in my own personal interest to be closed minded. However, since you bring up Reagan  let´s compare Carter  and Reagan shall we?  The Carter who you feel is the #1 President is the same president that  left our country with a double digit inflation our economy was in terrible shape when he left office. Not to metion the long lines to buy rationed gas and the goverment consumed roughly 70% of many people´s pay check.  My Reagan cut taxes down to rougly 30% which in return gave money back into the pockets of the working people, downsized government, brought in more tax revenue even at a lower rate compared to the higher rate former Carter days and did I mention he beat communisim.

So when I make this comparison, why would I not support Reagan.  Try not to make this a Demo/Liberal vs  Republican/Conserv...I´m neither!

Worth reading:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_United_States_Presidents

I have never claimed I did not like your Reagan otherwise he wouldn´t make it on my conservative list of top three presidents.

Reagan was indeed a very successful leader. I admire the skill with which he kept the reins of his country at a very turbulent time making some of the most important decisions ever made by a US President. 

Nevertheless, Reagan can also be criticized for being on the border of old school patriotism. Having said that I can never compare him to the two Bushes.  He was a fatherly figure defending the need for believing in one´s country and supporting all its objectives with eyes closed - a thought which was not shared by the young generation in America. Nevertheless, it was this attitude of his that kept the country together and strong.  I believe he had te potential to become a president in the 60´s when he was much younger and smarter. Would he be as successful only God knows.

As for Carter and the criticism you direct to him. We had a prime minister who passed away a while ago. He can be compared to Carter in some regards. Ecevit was a poet and  a journalist. Though he was a left leader he was also a true believer of his country. This aspect is common to all American Presidents. In this country however, there are people who criticize leaders for being half as patriotic as the  average US president (or the leader of any country). 

You are bashing the high taxes and the bad state of the economy under Carter. Carter faced a global crisis which was several folds graver than the one we are having at the moment. These crises are like lottery tickets. We can´t blame Carter for this. During that critical period, he appeared on TV and invited the US public to conserve energy and stop wasting resources. You complain of high taxes but the entire Europe is run by governments collecting taxes several folds higher than those in the US. Both Obama and Carter promised people to cut off on defense expenses which I believe is very true.  The US went through many Great Recessions and Reagan was in power in one of them too.

As for the mirror talk, I based that on your posts until date which makes you a bit predictable in terms of political preferences. It is of course not my business to evaluate you and your preferences and should there be a countinuation on this matter maybe it must be through PM´s in order not to personalize matters on a public forum.  I hope you will find this critic within tolerable limits.

I´m sorry for going off-topic (i can´t rank 3 US presidents as I don´t know enough about them) but it just gets my goats when I read it was an American president who took down communism. How can you do that if you´re not a leader of a communist country? It was the people of Europe who dealt with the system, not the US. A lot of people died to bring communism to an end. If the States REALLY wanted to support them communism would be over way earlier. Yet it seems that communism was pretty convenient for the US - at least they had an enemy to scare people with and could justify army expenses with Cold War...

Great post DD.  Dont worry about the US now though - they have the evil Muslims to wage war against (to justify army expenses)

 Indecency?

How did a blow job from a secretary affect his ability to be president?  The only difference between him and the others is that he was caught!

I have to agree there!  I watched the East Germans rip the Berlin wall apart on TV - something I will never forget!

I don´t think anyone here was giving Reagan sole credit for bringing down communism.  Of course it was the people who brought the wall down, I don´t dispute that.  However if you have ever read the book Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism.  You will see how Reagan led a lifetime crusade to bring communism down and his desire to liberate the people of the Soviet empire.  I also  give credit to Gorbachev for breaking the communist party monopoly of power and for eventually allowing religous freedom to take place.  Communism convenient?

Carter was a great president.  He is one man who walked the walk....IOW he followed his ideals.  If we had listened to him and followed some of his advice, we would not be in the situation we are now. I love that man.

Reagan on the other hand...cut funding to state hospitals, emptying the inmates into the streets...causing the homeless problem. 

Let´s not forget IranContra....

Rock & Radiation, not Ronald Reagan, Brought down the Soviet Union

by Harvey Wasserman
 

No greater nonsense will accompany Ronald Reagan to his grave than the idea that he brought down the Soviet Union and ended the Cold War.

Among the many causes of Soviet collapse two words stand out, and they aren´t Ronald Reagan.

They are rock and radiation.

The GOP military´s 1980s attempt to "spend the Soviets into oblivion" certainly feathered the nests of the defense contractors who contributed to Reagan´s campaigns here, and who still fatten George W. Bush. Lockheed-Martin, Halliburton and an unholy host of GOP insiders have scored billions in profits from Iran-Contra to Star Wars to Desert Storm to Iraq.

But these were not the people who brought down the Kremlin. If anything, they prolonged Soviet rule with the unifying threat of apocalyptic attack.

No, it was rock & roll that wrecked the USSR. From the late 1960s on, the steady beat of the Beatles and Motown, Bob Dylan and Jimi Hendrix, shattered Stalinism at its stodgy core.

Precisely the things most hated by the Reagan´s rightist culture warriors here eroded and helped dissolve the old-time Soviet culture there. Beamed in by radio, smuggled in on records and tapes, the "youth music" was unstoppable.

When Mikhail Gorbachev announced Perestroika, it was at least in partial response to the irresistible subversion of the western counterculture. Rock and roll was doing to the remnants of Stalin´s Russia what it had already done to Eisenhower´s America.

The final blow came not from Ronald Reagan´s beloved nuclear weapons, but from the Soviets´ own Three Mile Island.

After Chernobyl Unit Four exploded on April 26, 1986, Swedish radiation monitors detected huge clouds of radiation pouring out of the Ukraine. Gorbachev lied about it. Critical days passed before his "open" regime acknowledged the catastrophe.

As apocalyptic radiation poured over their land and into their bodies, millions of Soviet citizens were infuriated to learn from sources outside their country how horrific the disaster really was---and that their lives were in genuine danger. Cancer, birth defects, stillbirths and more soared out of control. Gorbachev´s credibility was forever shattered.

Soon a staggering 800,000 draftees---"liquidators"--- were forced into deadly manual clean-up. The horrific maelstrom of resulting disease fed a fierce organization parallel to the US´s Vietnam Vets Against the War that remains an uncompromising political force throughout the former Soviet Union.

With the fury aimed at Gorbachev came devastating economic fallout. Untold billions went to evacuate and quarantine the Chernobyl region. The costs are still escalating. The danger of a renewed melt-down still boils beneath the surface.

The epidemic of radiation-related diseases has also taken a huge psychological toll, with countless evacuees and victims---many of them children---still in pitiable condition.

Himself a pusher of atomic power since his "Death Valley Days" working for General Electric, Reagan never mentioned the devastating impacts of Chernobyl. He also never thanked the Beatles.

But a cultural revolution and a nuclear malfunction cracked the Kremlin´s core. Reagan´s beloved Cold War made his GOP buddies even richer. But it was rock and radiation that finally did in the Soviets.

I´m curious just exactly how you define "recent"? They all have some good points and some bad ones.  My favorite would have been FDR...for the New Deal.  I´m thinking that maybe he isn´t recent enough for you?  Even he had his faults...in particular the issue of Executive Order 9066 during WWII

"In 1942 Roosevelt made the final decision in ordering the internment of Japanese, Italian, and German Americans (many not released until well after the war´s end) during World War II."

List of US Presidents

It is indeed difficult to determine what recent means in connection with the US presidents. Considering the length of their office terms (Reagan 8 years, George (father) Bush 4 years, Clinton 8 years and George Bush 8 years), we are looking into a period of 28 years and five presidents.  It is generally believed that before the period of Reagan the world was totally different politically (a two pole world, cold war era, the lingering consequences of the world war the second and communism).

Reagan was the first of those leaders who began talking about concepts like global village, star wars etc. He proved the he was a president with a keen vision. Therefore he must be the starting point of  "recent" as applied to US presidents. Carter is admittedly a bit out of this scope but then again he is probably the most different US president ever. Therefore he is easily remembered.

I really don´t know how much of that was his vision....after all, he was an actor.  Reagan was widely reported to had had signs of Alzheimers during his second term, some actually say it was before that....after an assassination attempt less than three months into his first term..

As far as Global Vision....many world leaders thoughout time have had Global visions....Alexander....Atilla....NapoleonI...the Punic wars....all were about Global "unification"....

As for Star Wars....anything that could possibly be weaponized has been......

Carter was before Reagan.  It was the Iran Hostage Crisis that defeated Carter.  The hostages were released just minutes after Reagan was inaugurated.

I don´t think Reagan was a bad man, or evil....but his brand of Tough Love I could do without.  I do not think it really helps.

I guess the question is what criteria do use to determine who is considered a “great president”? For me a “great” president is someone who can effectively lead their people and have proven accomplishments. The overall consensus in the U.S. is that Reagan was an effective leader and indeed led his people. Carter may have been a nice guy..but he did not effectively lead us. You may not agree with Reagans policies, however a great portion of our country felt Reagan was successful at promoting his vision. I can’t say the same for Carter. C-Span recently did a survey in 2009 based on specific criteria asked to the public and scholars. The results are below..

http://www.c-span.org/PresidentialSurvey/presidential-leadership-survey.aspx

For me, I would have to say:

1.  Abraham Lincoln

2.  Ronald Reagan

3.  FDR

Three men who guided our country at pivitol times. 

OMG... so spot on!!

Actually your modern government has done one of the worst killings of the second half of the 20th century, among the "mountain turks", but I am sure you´re going to deny that!

I don`t remember a Kurdish genocide by Turkey but I remember the muslim genocide by your country in the 21st century, but I`m sure you`re gonna deny it.

well, there is one. do study it.

will you study the muslim genocide by your country?

Oh, but this is not a genocide, those are casualties of war. Isn´t that what the Turkey is saying about the genocide of the Armenians?

ahahahaha yeah they are "casualties of war", and when did Turkey say that?

if you wantto educate your ignorant self refer to the tallarmeniantales.com

I don`t remember the Iraqis killing hundreds of thousands of Americans, but it goes only the other way around.

Only a Turk who likes  embarressing his own country, would come and accuse other countries with genocide!!

I would not rule out sadomasochism though... It might be ´pleasure from humiliation´ kind of thing 

yeah only non-Turks can accuse the others of genocide and those non-Turks who accuse the others of genocide have never carried out a genocide against the American Natives, or Turks, or Bosnians, or Algerians, or the Aborigines, or the Mayas, or the Incas, or the Azteks.

But only a Turk who is suffering from inferiority complex could see himself uncapable of pointing out the crimes of westerners.

Well you two  have to decide what sort of complex I have really!!

One of you kept saying the other one but you are copying the one I said about you..

Look you are neither  the  brightest star in the sky nor the sharpest tool in the shed..

Stop embarresing yourself and Turkey here..

Don´t expect to be taken seriously when you talk about things like genocide light heartedly.

There are people from different nations, totally different walks of life. There is unfortunately one thing that is common to most users, we like fighting.  It doesn´t matter what we are fighting about.  People need to learn a new thing everyday, we should really learn not to fight over every little thing sooner than later.

Both catwoman and muhsin are making unsubstantiated accusations.  Webster dictinory  explains the word genocide as : "the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group".  In order for a genocide exist there must be "destruction". We can blame the coup d´Etat of the early 80´s and the Ciller period where torture and murders committed by unknown perpetrators. It is true that thousands of people lost their lives. Nonetheless, the primary motive behind all these murders and torture was not eradicating the Kurdish population.  The two periods in the recent history were dominated by nationalist leaders who waged a war against anyone whom they had considered as terrorists and seperatists. Therefore, while it was certainly not a genocide, it did not target  exclusively the Kurds but all the citizens who defended what the government refered to as a seperatist policy.

There is probably no decent nation in the world. I can´t claim ours is among the best. Nevertheless, it is improbable that a genocide has occured in our recent history.

There were several genocide attempts in the 20th century. One of them was committed by the Germans. They completely accepted this. The massacre of muslims in Bosnia, this was also accepted by the international public and the perpetrators were convicted (though there is still some bad smell about this incident). The large scale oppression and forced emigration of Turks in Bulgaria. While this was not a genocide, all the precursors of one was present. God only knows what would happen if they did not leave Bulgaria.  We can also add to those Hutu-Tutsi conflict and the deeds of the Khmer Rouge regime.

Dude, you´re missing the point. I´m not going to get into a debate over the Armenian genocide with you, I don´t know enough about it to have an educated opinion, the point I´m making is a) your hypocrysy and b) what label you slap on things depends on what side of the conflict you´re on - not to mention you have no idea what the definition of the genocide is (and you´re calling me ignorant, ha!).

And didn´t you say "Muslim genocide" - so now what, it´s not Muslims, it´s Iraqis? Why don´t you make up your mind, are Americans killing Muslims because they are Muslims (hmmm, amazing how the Muslism in the USA are not being executed on a daily basis <insert sarcasm here> or are they killing Iraqis who happen to be Muslims?

 As I am SURE this is a subject to which you have an educated opinion, I would like to ask you a question Melek - why exactly are they killing Iraqis?

Excuse my ignorance please

What a stupid question!!!

they are killing to bring democracy

 Are you able to tell me why they are at war with Iraq?

People should really read the definition of genocide  

 Yes forgive me for going off topic, I am just really interested to know why they are killing Iraqis and what the war is about

Spare me the sarcasm.

You know as well as anybody that there´s a multitude of unjustified reasons why Iraq was invaded. I´m sure you are familiar with those due to your own country´s involvement. I´m sure neither you nor I are proud or approve of them.

It is however NOT a genocide of Muslims BECAUSE they are Muslims.

first you have to tell us why UK are at war with US

 Because we are the lap dog of Americans

I am still waiting for an answer.  I am very confused   You see...at the time "we" went to war with Iraq we were told it was because Iraq had weapons of mass distruction.  I am just wondering what the real secret reason was and why the American public did not have a public outcry that they were blatently lied to

So by your reasoning, if China suddenly decide to attack the US, with no explanation, and bomb whole cities causing mass death to civilians it is OK because they are just casualities of war?

I think the reason of invading a country id nothing to do with the genocide at all..

I think that is the point where our  ´clever´ friends are getting confused here..

It does not matter why USA or the UK went to the war as far as "making the judgment if it was a genocide or not is concerned" 

 Again, you are missing the point as I already admitted my comments had nothing to do with "genocide" but were going off topic as I was interested in Melek´s casualties of war comment. 

We already had this discussion and you already asked me that here. My opinions have not changed since. Unlike you I don´t experience fluctuations in personality.

I have NEVER said it´s ok for any country to attack another and I´ve NEVER said it´s ok for a person or a country to kill even ONE other person. I will call it genocide if China decides to wipe all Americans off the face of the earth because of their nationality, ethinicity or religion. I will NOT call it genocide if reasons are economic for example.

If you have difficulties understanding the point I was making, you can ask me to explain it. Don´t try to provoke me into an argument about a totally different issue.

Ye we have had this discussion before and as you see my opinions are just the same - and you are STILL sounding like an all american military girl!

Are you insane?  

It is interesting how some parts of history are described as "genocide" and others are not.  A good example is the Spanish Inquisition (a perfect example of genocide) which has never been referred to as that in any history book that I can find.  In addition, it is only in very recent years that "genocide" has been used to describe the mass killing of American Indians.

duplicate post

I don´t know why I apologised for going offtopic - TheHandsom and Melek who keep telling me I am going off topic, were discussing genocide on this thread, NOT american presidents!!!

Well, according to some historians on this site, genocide and American presidents do go together!!

I wasn´t discussing anything, I just made a sarcastic jab at Tami.

AE said...."Strange - these are the same people who voted Bush back into power with a majority at the previous election to this "

Well there have been a lot of talk about that...."Was the 2004 Election Stolen?"

AE said...."Actually OUR opinion does matter - it is what democracy is all about or should I say SUPPOSED TO BE about."

..........it seems many have forgotten that..........but we also need to be engaged...which means educating ourselves about issues.......Really, it´s sad many do not have the resources to educate themselves...then too many are just too lazy.  Like, It´s not an accident things are so complicated....like mortgage contracts...the fine print...

Basically going around and accusing USA and UK  in Iraq with  genocide is abit baseless..

It will bring more harm to you as a person and to what you are trying to say..

Agreed. There are specific criteria by which genocide is defined established by the United Nations after World War II. Calling any military conflict a genocide is indicative of the lack of understanding of what genocide is.

And for AE and Tami - the above does NOT indicate I approve of any military conflict.

 None of my posts were saying that (as I made clear) - I can´t speak for others though - and frankly can understand to some degree why they find the UK and USA as poor judges or what is "genocide" bearing in mind the colonial history of the UK.

The US senete should have followed those rules before declaring the Armenian killings as genocide eh?

 I believe vineyards sited a websters definition.....and a very good post, might I add.

Exactly..

It is a bit ´thin´ to go around and scream your head ´it is a genocide´.. 

There are certain criterias even they are not agreed upon by everybody..However Vineyards explained the definition quite briefly up there..

But as you said.. That is not approval of the invasion of Iraq.. 

That is where people are jumping into WRONG conclusion!!

As should EU?

Of course UK doesn´t follow what the rest of "continentals" do, huh?

 Does that bother you?  Yes, the UK has not declared it to be genocide.  We are FIRST independent countries and SECOND part of the EU.  I realise we "little countries" are very insignificant to you in the US, but what can we expect eh?

PS "Continentals? 

 I saw only one person coming to that conclusion - maybe you need glasses

 So on the one hand you declare that there are specific United Nations criteria and now, on the other hand, you defend the US senete for declaring it to be genocide, independently of the United Nations!

 It doesn´t really bother me. I don´t really care if it´s called genocide or massacre, the fact is it´s a tragic part of a history and the label is not going to change that.

Insignificant? What are you talking about. You´re one of our biggest allies!

P.S. I used to date a Brit a while back and he used to call all Europeans outside of the British Isles "continentals" (with a bit of contempt I might add lol). 

Nope, I´m not defending it. I didn´t even know that was the case until just now. And I have you to thank for educating the ignorant me.

I have no opinion about whether it was a genocide or not - like I mentioned before I don´t have enough knowledge about it to have an educated opinion.

 A lesson in making sweeping statements - there are 27 countries in the European Union, just 9 of them officially recognise the Armenian killings as genocide

(Russia and Switzerland are not members of the EU)

And yet YOU had NO problem making that statement about USA, where NOT ALL states approved of the recognition.

Cura te ipsum!  

 Sorry it is not the same thing at all!  Your senete is there to represent those states and collectively reached that decision.  There has been no EU vote on this at all - countries in europe have independently declared their "decision".

 At least you admit it - thehandsom should do the same (on most threads )

Considering there have been multiple resolutions of the EU Parliament on the issue since 1987, I´m not quite sure what you mean.

Hahahahahaha   Touche eh?  I see you have been busy googling since your original question (or someone sent you that link ).  Yes there are EU resolutions, but as a country we do not recognise it and the individual countries in your ORIGINAL post only make up one third of the EU.   A country is a bit different to a "state" - I know its hard for you to recognise that over there in the US

it`s funny to hear this from you. but they don`t have to "read the definition of genocide" when accusing the Turks of genocide right? That seems like the only exception for you.

well..

What did I say earlier?

Only a Turk who likes  embarressing his own country, would come and accuse other countries with genocide!!

I would not rule out sadomasochism though...

It might be ´pleasure from humiliation´ kind of thing 

And then some people get angry with me..

Look at it now..A thread about ´Usa presidents´ to ´Armenian genocide´!!

I am seriously thinking that some people like humiliation!! 

Phew

hmmm, I`m wondering who hijacked the thread. It`s clearly not me, but it might be someone who resorts to the so called armenian genocide argument whenever he/she comes accros an opinion against the west.

and a broader lesson for those who are suffering from the epidemic of ignorance, there are 20 countries around the world recognizing the so called armenian genocide and 19 of these countries are christian states. Out of these 19 christian countries, 0 (zero)  of them recognize the Native American genocide, or the Alegerian genocide. I hope that may give you an idea about how true the the so called armenian genocide is. is it a fact or is it a christian propaganda dictated by the christian supremacy?

ahahhaha yeah you admit that you don`t know anything about the issue, but you still baldly call it a genocide, just because your christian politicians say that it`s a genocide. and you expect us to take what you say seriously. at least be consistent.

as for your Iraqi/Muslim confusion, let me clear it up, thos Iraqis got killed for being muslims not for being Iraqis, that`s why it`s called a muslim genocide. if you don`t agree with this, answer AE`s question.

Why did the christians kill the muslims in Iraq if not for being muslims? Why didn`t they invade Thailand and kill some budhists instead? what was the guilt of Iraqis other than being Muslims?

Allah allah..

I am sure some people are getting a kick off  from this...

No other explanation really..

This is becoming a rare occasion now..!!! 

Dude, get it in your head, my comment was a sarcastic remark regarding your total lack of comprehension about what consitutes a genocide. In no way was it a comment about whether the so-called Armenian genocide deserves that status or not. I made a correction, least you assume again I´m siding with either side of the argument.

Obviously you didn´t get the point, which is not surprising really.

At this point I´m done discussing this topic, you can hold on to your breathtakingly inane opinions for all I care.

Do you really know about the issue?

You are repeating what "you were  told to repeat". 

You have not searched , you have not read anything..

And you are still  insisting that iraq killings were genicode of muslims?

What is this? a brain size of a pea after inflated?

Are they going to go and kill all muslims in the world then? 

allah allah..

what is this..a great joke? 

to sum it up;     "Tami is so f**king right"

Ha ha ha  

Rolling off the chair really!!!

ahahahahaha

look who is talking about the definition of genocide. did the Germans kill all the jews in the world?

You 

really

do 

have

to

read

the definition of genocide..

Please yaaaaa, show us some mercy!!!

I WAS googling it. How perceptive of you! lol

It´s actually kind of interesting, who knows it might be good to read up on it some more.

And really? A country is different than a state? You DON´T say!  

you googled it to find out what a state means. ahahahhaha, I suggest you to get back to highschool and learn the basics.

A state is simply a country. the slight difference is state in historical terms refers to city states which were not based based on a territory but the location of a single city. Because the Unites States was formed out of different autonomous states. They are still called states. The country in this case refers to the whole country. so there is nothing deceptive about what AE said, in case you`re still having a difficult time to understand it

Are you f* kidding me?

I googled the EU resolutions (and incidently, when I was in HS, there was no EU).

I think you have serious difficulties comprehending written text. 

Stooooppppp..

I can bear to watch it anymore...

My tummy is hurting!!!!!!!!!!

Enough is enough guys - if no-one is interested in the Top 3 Presidents any more I´m going to lock the thread on the grounds that its repetitive and boring now.

 In that case you will have to lock ALL the threads!

 Can you do this?  Is there an anti repetitive/boring rule now?  I guess I better start behaving myself then.  Anyway, I tried to be controversial when I posted my top 3.....but nobody cared.  I even put someone who wasn´t "recent"  but then again, my country is so young that they can all be considered recent.

And I will call you ´spoil sport´    

Stop stirring it Elisabeth you bed amrikan person!     You know I wasn´t talking about you!  

You being controversial would have been something fun to see!  When you try, it´s more like cotton candy...all fluff!!  (dammit I am having problems with my emoticons again!!!!  insert some kind of laughing (or evil, take your pick) face here)

 You may borrow one of mine.....

Now there IS a thought    - as a matter of interest there are still a couple of Armenian Genocide threads open where theh and mhsnsupertits could go and continue their argument (it would be like Back to the Future for mhsn - he could meet himself in a former life )

 Are there rules against arguing with former incarnations of yourself?   We have a few members that seem to have different points of view every time they get a new nickname..... 

ha ha ha

Such as?

 Oiiiiiiiiii!  This change of opinion may include my opinion of YOU!

I know, you used to think I was a bed Amerikan....now you just think I am bed....very bed! Bed to the bone!

 Excuse me?  Do I need to post a link to REMIND you what cotton candy is?  I am NOT fluff.  I am reporting you to admin!!  CATTTTTT!!!!

Top Five

1). FDR

2).Lincoln

3).Washington

4). Reagan

5). Eisenhower

Carter is high on my list. Saw many documentaries about him, and people don´t realize all the things he did. It´s hard to be a president for peace in the US, and he surely was one!

Clinton had a sound economic policy that people also underestimate.

maybe... I should include JFK, although he didn´t have much time to rule, he did a lot in his short administration time, and it makes you wonder how a full 4 years would have looked like. The peace corps is his legacy, as well as not sending nuclear missiles to Cuba. Sounds good to me