Click here to go to the NEW College Discussion Forum

On TV, on the news, this man had written a book about all the Presidents we have had, including a ranking of the most and least popular ones. The top 5 included people like Washington, FDR, and Lincoln. The interesting thing is, these presidents are also separated by 72 years:

1789 George Washington
1861 Abraham Lincoln
1933 FDR
2005 ......

I think you see where this is going.

By Magoo (Magoo) on Monday, July 05, 2004 - 04:56 pm: Edit

no...no, i don't sorry. maybe we can do this another time.

oh, wait now i get it...ok, lets hope that this ain't true...just a mere coincidence. if kerry wins (hopefully) then maybe we have a shot...but i don't know about that.

By Fenix_Three (Fenix_Three) on Monday, July 05, 2004 - 06:05 pm: Edit

I think all of the assassinations happened in years ending in 0 divisible by 20... or was it 40... anyways, there's a pattern there too.

By Hunter1985 (Hunter1985) on Monday, July 05, 2004 - 06:44 pm: Edit

Even if Kerry wins...no chance of this pattern continuing. Both Bush and Kerry are incredibly partisan and do not have the guts to do anything amazing/original/etc. to really change the country. Both are far from even being close to any of those presidents.

By Daffodil22 (Daffodil22) on Monday, July 05, 2004 - 07:33 pm: Edit

Since the Civil War, every 20 years, the president elected on the even numbered year (1860, 1880, 2000?) has died in office. It's called the "Curse of Tecumseh", and maybe Reagan broke it when the bullet hit him 1 cm from the main artery. So we still have to see what happens with George W.

By Daffodil22 (Daffodil22) on Monday, July 05, 2004 - 07:35 pm: Edit

I think that's the pattern, right Fenix?

By Bunmushroom (Bunmushroom) on Monday, July 05, 2004 - 08:13 pm: Edit

Bush has a chance if Iraq becomes very successful and more things like Libya's stopping of its nuclear program and agreeing to inspection occur in other countries. Right now he is not one of the most popular, but neither was Lincoln or Truman until later. Time will tell.

By Goodchocolate (Goodchocolate) on Monday, July 05, 2004 - 11:36 pm: Edit

Lincoln was shot at the theater named Ford...

Kennedy was shot in a Lincoln, which is made by Ford...

By Thenarrator (Thenarrator) on Tuesday, July 06, 2004 - 12:31 am: Edit

perhaps bush will be shot at kennedy airport, coming out of a Lincoln, which is made my Ford.

(disclaimer: i'm not planning anything, this isn't a conspiracy)

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Tuesday, July 06, 2004 - 01:49 am: Edit

Let's not hype Libya right now -- there was that attempted assassination. If I were a Republican I don't think I'd play that card.

By Bunmushroom (Bunmushroom) on Tuesday, July 06, 2004 - 02:39 am: Edit

well im playing it, because they just agreed to full un inspections.

By Thermodude (Thermodude) on Tuesday, July 06, 2004 - 02:44 am: Edit

But see...looking at the rule...the dates of 1789, 1861 and 1933 were when the presidents were INAUGURATED. Bush became president during 2001...so that would only be 67 years after 1933. That would mean that the president elected for 2005 would have to be someone other than the incumbant to satisfy the 72-year rule.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Tuesday, July 06, 2004 - 02:58 am: Edit

Umm, did you see the attempted assassination -- I think that's a sign Libya hasn't exactly turned it all the way around. Besides this has been coming for awhile -- Gaddhafi has been easing up for the past several years.

By Chavi (Chavi) on Tuesday, July 06, 2004 - 11:13 am: Edit

Yeah, and it wasn't Clinton who turned Gaddhafi around. It was Reagan. The bombing run he ordered shut Gaddhafi up for quite a while and Bush's action in Iraq may have finished him off. Kerry will just be more of the same namby-pamby liberal democratic nonsense. Lots of words, no action. And Hunter1985, you really missed the boat there. If Bush doesn't have the guts to do anything really original/amazing to change the country, then why are all the wimps complaining about all the controversial stuff he's done? Seems he's taken some pretty bold action, if you ask me. He'll be great, whether he gets re-elected or not. If he had no guts, he wouldn't have invaded Iraq or Afghanistan and certainly wouldn't have stuck it out like he has. Make up your minds, guys. You keep trying to have it both ways.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Tuesday, July 06, 2004 - 12:40 pm: Edit

Whether it was because of Clinton or not, most of Gaddhafi's changes took place during his presidency. I am quite certain that he was not "finished off" by Iraq as this was coming for a long, long time. I believe this primarily because Iraq didn't seem to frighten him away from terrorism (see attempted assassination).

On a sidenote, there really is no place for calling the other side "wimps." It's this kind of partisanship that keeps things from being done. I don't see why either side has to resort to this and really does not help you at all -- just state your case and move on.

Also, Hunter1985 is referring to Bush's inflexibility to do anything that does fall under his rigid ideology even if it is for the best of the country. Like him, I agree that Kerry won't cross the party line either.