NationStates Jolt Archive

Between THESE TWO ONLY - (just seeing how big a kneejerk there is here on NS)

Do these chickens have large talons?

Between THESE TWO ONLY - (just seeing how big a kneejerk there is here on NS) :confused: which two? :confused:

Ahh, now I see the poll.
Never mind.

and you need a neither or both choice.

Well, considering Lincoln worked his ass off for something that would actually benefit the U.S. and had good reason to do it, and that Bush didn't...eh...

Well, considering Lincoln worked his ass off for something that would actually benefit the U.S. and had good reason to do it, and that Bush didn't...eh...
But considering his supercession of the Constitution only God knows how many times......

But considering his supercession of the Constitution only God knows how many times......
Yeah but considering that the U.S. is still the U.S. and not the U.S., only not the U.S., I rather like Lincoln compared to Bush.

EDIT: And since when did Bush doing unconstitutional things have any benefit to the U.S. lately?

I dont think either of them were especialy BAD presidents, both were elected at a bad point in American history and had to do what they could.
And if ANYBODY posts some crap about Bush planning 9/11 I WILL find you and crucify you. With dull, rusty nails.

I think this poll is rather biased, as Lincoln freed the slaves, while Georgy bombed 2 nations. Put up some more options!

EDIT: And since when did Bush doing unconstitutional things have any benefit to the U.S. lately?
The Civil War was by far the bloodiest war ever fought in American history. 600,000 dead total.....

The Civil War was by far the bloodiest war ever fought in American history. 600,000 dead total.....
Well you try and prevent a Civil War and let's see how many lives you can save.

intresting two presidents who during thier terms were and are hated by most of the country. i would rather tolerate lincoln i done heard he was funnier than watching the republican national convention on lsd

Well you try and prevent a Civil War and let's see how many lives you can save.
*why* did Lincoln have to send supplies to Fort Sumter?!? That's my stipulation.....

This is either the easiest poly-sci quiz ever, or it's a trick question.

My kneejerk reaction was Dubya.

But after careful thought and consideration, weighing all the facts and putting their accomplishments and letdowns into context, my answer is still Dubya. :p

A couple glaring reasons come to mind, The biggest of which is:

LIncoln accomplished something. George W. Bush has yet to complete a single goal.

The economy is still screwed up. We still have troops in Afghanistan. We still have troops in Iraq. Education is still in shambles. Social Security hasn't been touched. Energy Policy is still bogged down. These seemed to be the really big ones he was working on.

At least Lincoln DID something. :p

you seeem to be suggesting that if we thought about it, lincoln would be the worse president.

if thats the case you are going to have to put up some support for it

couldnt you have at least asked bush vs carter??

Good God I'm the only Lincoln hater here!

I think this poll is rather biased, as Lincoln freed the slaves, while Georgy bombed 2 nations. Put up some more options!

Bush freed the Afghanis and Iraqis from brutal dictatorships

Lincoln freed the slaves and saved the Union.

OF course Bush is not the president that Lincoln is... Lincoln may have been our best.

of course, the northern Democrats wanted the war to end... if not for Grant kicking ass in the (at that time...) West and moving east with Sheridan and Sherman (if memory serves) to choke the life out of the CSA, the war might have ended a stalemate and the CSA could still be a country.

it's funny how McClellan was going to run as the Democrat candidate against Lincoln, and that McClellan turned against the war.

That guy was one of the worst on-field generals in the history of the US... he could have knocked the tar out of Lee had he simply decided to move... instead he just sat there and did nothing with the Army of the Potomac while Lee continually made him look like a bumbling moron.

*why* did Lincoln have to send supplies to Fort Sumter?!? That's my stipulation.....
Why did the confederates have to open fire on federal propery?!?!?! That's my question.

Well, seeing as back during the Civil War Lincoln was hated almost everywhere, but now he's earned his place in history and he has a very notable monument dedicated to him.

I think only time can tell if Bush was a great President...but then again....

what kind of question is this?
obviously bush

Actually the worst president ever was Warren G. Harding, also a republican.

Interesting note: Lincoln's wife was a psychotic bitch who verbally and physically abused him.

*why* did Lincoln have to send supplies to Fort Sumter?!? That's my stipulation.....
Because it was FUCKING FEDERAL LAND. THAT WAS HIS FUCKING JOB.

Lincoln, hands down.

Good God I'm the only Lincoln hater here!

Wrong. I also hate the bastard.

Okay if you want at least a fair poll make it:

Who is the worst:

Bucanon(can't spell)
Harding
Taft
Bush


Right now its unbalanced your taking one of the best presidents of all time and comparing him to bush...... no contest..... its like comparing a Roles and a volks wagan theres no contest!


ADANAC!

Lincoln was occupied with domestic troubles whereas Bush is an overseas kind of man. At least Lincoln dealt with problems at home.

Did we even need this question?

Okay if you want at least a fair poll make it:

Who is the worst:

Bucanon(can't spell)
Harding
Taft
Bush


Right now its unbalanced your taking one of the best presidents of all time and comparing him to bush...... no contest..... its like comparing a Roles and a volks wagan theres no contest!


ADANAC!

Tie between Harding and Bush. They both did the same ****, though Harding was an unwitting party to it and Bush is doing it on purpose.

Anyone who hates Lincoln more than Bush are fucking racists and should be crucified with rusty nails. I dont care if I get modded, these people deserve it!!! I bet they are all part of the fuckin KKK. SHOOT THE FAGGOTS!!

Anyone who hates Lincoln more than Bush are fucking racists and should be crucified with rusty nails. I dont care if I get modded, these people deserve it!!! I bet they are all part of the fuckin KKK. SHOOT THE FAGGOTS!!

Whoa buddy, that's a little harsh. That is in fact kinda flamey... might want to tone it down.
*note:not a mod, never been a mod, never will be a mod, am not channelling a mod Ms. Cleo style, etc.*

There are legitimate reasons not to like Lincoln. He was a racist, though to be fair less racist than many other politicians. He supported Colonization, a program to ship slaves out of America after they had been freed, so white people wouldn't have to live with them. He only abolished slavery in the rebel states, it was fine on the border states. He even said once that if it were possible to preserve the union without freeing the slaves he would do it.
That on top of the fact that he resupplied Ft. Sumpter knowing it would probably lead to a confrontation, which would lead to a war, which would cost thousands of lives. On top of that, he authorized a draft, and he suspended basic Constitutional rights during the war, which is honestly more than Bush has done... yet.

Lincoln has a wonderful image that resonates throughout history, and having read the Gettysburg address one really gets the feeling that he was a good man, but I probably wouldn't have liked him if I lived with him as president. I won't vote in the poll because I deep down know it's probably a tie, but my severe dislike of Bush would make me prove the OP's knee-jerk theory.

Anyone who hates Lincoln more than Bush are fucking racists and should be crucified with rusty nails. I dont care if I get modded, these people deserve it!!! I bet they are all part of the fuckin KKK. SHOOT THE FAGGOTS!!
Uhhh... yeaaah.
He was a racist, though to be fair less racist than many other politicians. He supported Colonization, a program to ship slaves out of America after they had been freed, so white people wouldn't have to live with them. He only abolished slavery in the rebel states, it was fine on the border states.
Yeah, and apparently he kept slaves to work for him in the kitchen and junk and said it was a 'job'. He paid them oh so very handsomely.

Whoa buddy, that's a little harsh. That is in fact kinda flamey... might want to tone it down.
*note:not a mod, never been a mod, never will be a mod, am not channelling a mod Ms. Cleo style, etc.*

There are legitimate reasons not to like Lincoln. He was a racist, though to be fair less racist than many other politicians. He supported Colonization, a program to ship slaves out of America after they had been freed, so white people wouldn't have to live with them. He only abolished slavery in the rebel states, it was fine on the border states. He even said once that if it were possible to preserve the union without freeing the slaves he would do it.
That on top of the fact that he resupplied Ft. Sumpter knowing it would probably lead to a confrontation, which would lead to a war, which would cost thousands of lives. On top of that, he authorized a draft, and he suspended basic Constitutional rights during the war, which is honestly more than Bush has done... yet.

Lincoln has a wonderful image that resonates throughout history, and having read the Gettysburg address one really gets the feeling that he was a good man, but I probably wouldn't have liked him if I lived with him as president. I won't vote in the poll because I deep down know it's probably a tie, but my severe dislike of Bush would make me prove the OP's knee-jerk theory.

Very true, but during that time period in America, there was prejudice, racism and stereotypes. Now, no one can change another person's mind or opinion so nevertheless there was going to be racism whether the black people liked it or not. The fact that Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation and gave rights to black people shows that Lincoln had some compassion in his heart and he also saw the evil in black people being slaves. Even though he was a tad bit racist himself, he still helped the African people.

Now....Bush.....
First of all, he is messing around in affairs he should not be like the War in Iraq. This war was completly unnecessary and because of him over 12,000+ people (including soldiers) are dead. And yet there are still insurgents fighting them back. Bush calls it "spreading democracy" I call it "IMPERIALISM"!! Not only that, Bush is stupid beyond recognition. He has no idea what tribal sovereignty means so as a result he bullshits. Want proof? Right here:

http://media.ebaumsworld.com/sovereignty.mov

Both suffer(ed) from severe mental illness, both ignore(d) the Constitution, and both started wars that divided the American people. The difference: Lincoln did all that to stop the country from falling apart. Dubya did it while continuing to let the country fall apart. I think Lincoln deserves a little more respect that Dubya. Not a lot more, just a little.

The Civil War was by far the bloodiest war ever fought in American history. 600,000 dead total.....

Not his fault that one of the most modern armies in the world was still using the tactics that Napoleon used.

Not only that, Bush is stupid beyond recognition. He has no idea what tribal sovereignty means so as a result he bullshits. Want proof? Right here:

http://media.ebaumsworld.com/sovereignty.mov

Hee hee. That's one of my all time favorites. But I think perhaps you're being to hard on him. I think he just thinks that "sovreignenity" is a single word, like "flaminable" and "subliminable."

Oddly enough though, I think the worst part of that quote of his is the phrase "you've been given sovreignty." The whole point of sovreignty is that it isn't anyone else's to give to you. You have it because you are it. That says more about him not knowing the meaning of the word sovreignty than the fact that he literally doesn't know the meaning of the word.

Whoa buddy, that's a little harsh. That is in fact kinda flamey... might want to tone it down.
*note:not a mod, never been a mod, never will be a mod, am not channelling a mod Ms. Cleo style, etc.*

LOL!! That is what happens when I get extraordinarily angry and frustrated with today's society. I go extreme!! Kinda flamey??? HAHAHAHAHAH!!! That is more like a flamethrower!!

Hee hee. That's one of my all time favorites. But I think perhaps you're being to hard on him. I think he just thinks that "sovreignenity" is a single word, like "flaminable" and "subliminable."

Oddly enough though, I think the worst part of that quote of his is the phrase "you've been given sovreignty." The whole point of sovreignty is that it isn't anyone else's to give to you. You have it because you are it. That says more about him not knowing the meaning of the word sovreignty than the fact that he literally doesn't know the meaning of the word.

:p :D

Lincoln planned to send the blacks back to Africa. To all black readers: How'd you like to be in Somalia right now?

Wow this is a really objective poll. Not only does it frame the debate negatively, it compares a lackluster president with a president who played a crucial role in ensuring that the US is even here today. I really need to think hard about this one. Good job super-power, you should know that this poll is 100% accurate and really does show that people just hate president Bush. Jeez.

Lincoln planned to send the blacks back to Africa. To all black readers: How'd you like to be in Somalia right now?

Meh, what if they did go back? You do not know how the state of Somalia could be! Therefore, you cannot assume that Somalia would be a bad place to live in if the blacks did get sent black. For all that we know, Somalia could be extremely modern while America would be poor if they did get sent back.

PWNT!!!

Lincoln planned to send the blacks back to Africa. To all black readers: How'd you like to be in Somalia right now?

It was going to be an awful situation whether we were shipped off or stayed here. A lot of blood was gonna be shed regardless. But that was just in defense of Lincoln. Knowing now what folks didn't know then, I can say that the latter is better, but not because America was/is this wonderfully safe and nonracist country.

Originally posted by Ubershizasianaxis
Meh, what if they did go back? You do not know how the state of Somalia could be! Therefore, you cannot assume that Somalia would be a bad place to live in if the blacks did get sent black. For all that we know, Somalia could be extremely modern while America would be poor if they did get sent back.

PWNT!!!

Somalia was just an example. Name five African countries you'd like to be in.

Somalia was just an example. Name five African countries you'd like to be in.

No, you dont get it. It doesnt matter what country they could be sent to. Like I said for all we know, Africa could have become more modern than the U.S if the blacks did move. YOU CANNOT PREDICT THAT ANY COUNTRY WILL REMAIN IN A BAD SHAPE FOREVER!!! Now, if you dont get that, then you are stupid

PWNT!! (again)

Originally posted by Ubershizasianaxis.
No, you dont get it. It doesnt matter what country they could be sent to. Like I said for all we know, Africa could have become more modern than the U.S if the blacks did move. YOU CANNOT PREDICT THAT ANY COUNTRY WILL REMAIN IN A BAD SHAPE FOREVER!!! Now, if you dont get that, then you are stupid

PWNT!! (again)

Africa already had plenty of blacks. Why would adding more have helped them? And how did blacks bring us into the modern era? There were very few black inventors, and there were plenty of Irish to do hard work.

Meh, what if they did go back? You do not know how the state of Somalia could be! Therefore, you cannot assume that Somalia would be a bad place to live in if the blacks did get sent black. For all that we know, Somalia could be extremely modern while America would be poor if they did get sent back.

PWNT!!!


You can't assume that it would be a good place, either. You can't even assume that the fact that blacks didn't leave to Africa had much influence in how "good" or "bad' the modern US is.

Tough one, but it came down to intellect. And Bush lost by a long leg.

You can't assume that it would be a good place, either. You can't even assume that the fact that blacks didn't leave to Africa had much influence in how "good" or "bad' the modern US is.

I thought that was understood....Apparently it was not. The Kea assumed that sending Blacks to Africa was like sending people to the slums and ghettos and shit. I simply told him that he cannot predict that.

Originally posted by Ubershizasianaxis.
I thought that was understood....Apparently it was not. The Kea assumed that sending Blacks to Africa was like sending people to the slums and ghettos and shit. I simply told him that he cannot predict that.

Maybe Africa would have become a wonderful place. But sending people back then would have been even worse. It would have been like sending them to slums and ghettos. It was awful there!

Africa already had plenty of blacks. Why would adding more have helped them? And how did blacks bring us into the modern era? There were very few black inventors, and there were plenty of Irish to do hard work.

Ok, now I am considering you racist. You assume these blacks are just "people" and no one special. You dont seem to get that the former slaves will have adopted the American ways and use those ways to help improve the areas they would live in. It is not like they would automatically revert to the ways of the Africans already living there.

I thought that was understood....Apparently it was not. The Kea assumed that sending Blacks to Africa was like sending people to the slums and ghettos and shit. I simply told him that he cannot predict that.


The "PWNT!" seemed to imply that you thought this to be a crushing point against the opposition. I was merely pointing out that it wasn't.

Maybe Africa would have become a wonderful place. But sending people back then would have been even worse. It would have been like sending them to slums and ghettos. It was awful there!

*sighs* HOW DO YOU KNOW!!!

The "PWNT!" seemed to imply that you thought this to be a crushing point against the opposition. I was merely pointing out that it wasn't.

Haha, then say that.

Africa already had plenty of blacks. Why would adding more have helped them? And how did blacks bring us into the modern era? There were very few black inventors, and there were plenty of Irish to do hard work.

We didn't invent much? Are you fucking with me? We invented the Cataract Laserphaco Probe, the perm, the plow, peanut butter. . . tons of shit. Go to http://inventors.about.com/library/blblackinventors.htm. Those are extraordinary accomplishments. And we worked our asses off even after slavery. Tell that bullshit to my grandparents. I cannot believe people can act like they care about the fate of blacks and be so damn racist. We have definitely contributed.

Originally posted by Ubershizasianaxis.
Ok, now I am considering you racist. You assume these blacks are just "people" and no one special. You dont seem to get that the former slaves will have adopted the American ways and use those ways to help improve the areas they would live in. It is not like they would automatically revert to the ways of the Africans already living there.

I was stating a fact about there being few African inventors. And your statement about how the blacks would have make Africa wonderful is contradictory to fact. What about Liberia? They went back to Africa to make a wonderful democratic government. Now look at it.

Originally posted by Farrisland.
We didn't invent much? Are you fucking with me? We invented the Cataract Laserphaco Probe, the perm, the plow, peanut butter. . . tons of shit. Go to http://inventors.about.com/library/blblackinventors.htm. Those are extraordinary accomplishments. And we worked our asses off even after slavery. Tell that bullshit to my grandparents. I cannot believe people can act like they care about the fate of blacks and be so damn racist. We have definitely contributed.

What I meant was that no invention has been made by a black that has changed the way we live today.

I was stating a fact about there being few African inventors. And your statement about how the blacks would have make Africa wonderful is contradictory to fact. What about Liberia? They went back to Africa to make a wonderful democratic government. Now look at it.

Its official, you are a moron. Read my posts. HOW THE FUCK DO YOU KNOW THAT IF THEY SENT BLACKS TO LIBERIA, LIBERIA WOULD NOT BE MODERN!! SHUT THE HELL UP!!

What I meant was that no invention has been made by a black that has changed the way we live today.

You have proved once again that you are a moron.

Originally posted by Ubershizasianaxis.
Its official, you are a moron. Read my posts. HOW THE FUCK DO YOU KNOW THAT IF THEY SENT BLACKS TO LIBERIA, LIBERIA WOULD NOT BE MODERN!! SHUT THE HELL UP!!

Blacks went to Liberia to make it a better place. So it would have been better if they had been forced to go there to make it a better place?

Originally posted by Ubershizasianaxis.
You have proved once again that you are a moron.

That's flaming, and you can get in trouble for it. Anyway, name an invention.

Between THESE TWO ONLY - (just seeing how big a kneejerk there is here on NS)
I'm really disappointed in you, SP. That has to be one of the strangest and least intelligent questions I've ever seen on here. :(

What I meant was that no invention has been made by a black that has changed the way we live today.

Those inventions on that website changed so much. Or did you even look at it? You probably don't care. But anyway, most all inventions change our lifestyle.

What I meant was that no invention has been made by a black that has changed the way we live today.
Erh? The plow hasn't changed life as we know it? News to me.

Well, when comparing these two presidents, it really depends on something...

Are we comparing their effect; their long term effect from their terms of Presidency? Or are we comparing their presidencies and decisions/motives within those terms as individuals? Example: Who was better, Martin Luther King Jr.? Or Rosa Parks.

One would say Rosa Parks because she's theoretically the 'mother' and starter of the whole civil rights movement. One might say that if it weren't for her denial to give up her seat, Martin Luther King Jr. wouldn't have gotten his popularity, and the entire Civil Rights Movement may not have happened, or at least prolonging it. That would be the point of view looking at the effects of her actions. Or are we looking at the actions themselves? After all, all Rosa Parks did was sit down in front of a bus. She, and other people have done things like that before the particular incident. Even she says that she never intended to have an effect in which it did, all she wanted was that seat. She just happened to be in the right place in the right time.

The same goes with these two presidents here. Are we looking at what was in effect of Lincoln's actions? Lincoln did win us the Civil War, preventing the Confederates' sovereignty over the Southern States, freeing the slaves. That would be the effect. However, Lincoln was a racist himself, and would have rather continued slavery in the Union. He mostly fought the Civil War for economic reasons.

I think it's too early to accurately compare these two Presidents. It's like comparing a classic film like "Lawrence of Arabia", with a brand new movie that people think will become a classic. You have to wait see what the new film (or in this case, president) will cause. You have to see the longer-term effect of it.

However, if we're comparing their decisions and motives within their terms as individuals, It's my opinion that Bush is the worse President. This is for many many reasons that I would much rather not go into detail, or else I could be writing for days about the presidencies of Lincoln and Bush.

That's flaming, and you can get in trouble for it. Anyway, name an invention.
Did you not go to school. . . at all? There was the fellow (forgot his name) that made medical breakthroughs with regards to blood transfusion.

That's flaming, and you can get in trouble for it. Anyway, name an invention.

James West invented the foil-electret transducers. Now it is used in almost every microphone and telephone. Happy?

Lincoln planned to send the blacks back to Africa. To all black readers: How'd you like to be in Somalia right now?

Actually I think he would hve sent them to Monroevia

Originally posted by CSW.
Erh? The plow hasn't changed life as we know it? News to me.

If you had looked at the site, you would have seen that the ROMANS had plows. So I suppose an African-American invented it.

If you had looked at the site, you would have seen that the ROMANS had plows. So I suppose an African-American invented it.
We greatly improved the plow.

If you had looked at the site, you would have seen that the ROMANS had plows. So I suppose an African-American invented it.
Care to guess what ethnic group settled the area were plows first were found?

Originally posted by Farrisland.
We greatly improved to plow.

If you had looked at the site, you would have seen that the ROMANS had better plows than the ones in the 18th century.

Originally posted by CSW.
Care to guess what ethnic group settled the area were plows first were found?

We do not know if they were black or not. We know they were in an area that is now black. The blacks could have moved in later.

*snip*

The same goes with these two presidents here. Are we looking at what was in effect of Lincoln's actions? Lincoln did win us the Civil War, preventing the Confederates' sovereignty over the Southern States, freeing the slaves. That would be the effect. However, Lincoln was a racist himself, and would have rather continued slavery in the Union. He mostly fought the Civil War for economic reasons.

I*snip*

Actually Licoln would do whatever it took to keep the Union together. I believe there was a quote of him saying that if he could keep the Union together by not freeing any slaves, he would, and if he could keep it together by freeing all of them, he would, and if he could keep it together by freeing some but not all slaves, he would.

If you had looked at the site, you would have seen that the ROMANS had better plows than the ones in the 18th century.
Whatever. That's not the point. I'll give you more. Cell phone, refrigerator, mop, roller coaster, guitar, banjo, fiddling, toilet, door stop, door knob, golf tee, lotions and soaps, paints and satins. . . . Need I say even more?

Africa already had plenty of blacks. Why would adding more have helped them? And how did blacks bring us into the modern era? There were very few black inventors, and there were plenty of Irish to do hard work.

Are you taking shots at the Irish now too?

http://www33.brinkster.com/iiiii/inventions/

Though Lincoln violated the Constitution and ensured freedoms to such an extent that no other president can possibly compare TO DATE. The is valid resoning that it was in preservation of the union and American republic.

Geroge Bush however is just pissing on the Constitution for no valid reasons. I'd liken him to a Caligula version of Darth Sidious.

I'd dub him Darth dubbya though. His stupidity is rather obscene.

Bush is a decent President, but Honest Abe is Honest Abe. Lincoln's untouchable.

We do not know if they were black or not. We know they were in an area that is now black. The blacks could have moved in later.

The original inhabitants of Africa were black. There is essentially no doubt about that. I can explain the evolutionary biology behind that statement if you like, but it'd be faster if you'd just take my word for it rather than forcing me to explain the mechanics of vitamin D absorption in various climates.

Given your "what was Africa going to do with more black people? It already had plenty!" argument, I presume no new white people can be remotely useful to the U.S.? Perhaps all of us white people should stop procreating, since any children we produce would just be white kids, and we already have lots of those.

:rolleyes:

Bush is a decent President, but Honest Abe is Honest Abe. Lincoln's untouchable.

Yep, abe was untouchable, even by John Wilkes booth, sort of Booth and his partners did not act a couple of years earlier.

I ought to be in bed, I have work in five hours and I havn't sleep.

Well, again, my numbered posts.

1. Bush is .... lets just say that if I were the type inclined to go kill someone, it'd be him.

2. Lincoln would have been a relativly weak president and not well known - if not for the Civil War. He was a fraxing Moderate, and his entire platform during his first election was "Keep the Union Whole." He would NOT have abolished slavery in the South, meerly stopped it from growing. He would have let economic factors, which were already at workin the West and the Southern states that stayed with the Union, slowly take hold as the South industrillized, once again removing the economic NEED for slavery.

However, once the Confederates declared seccession, Lincoln had to do a war.

The Emancipation Proclomation was just a way to get the moral upper hand. "We're freeing the slaves in the South!" they told the Brits and the French.

But had the South NOT left the Union, Lincoln wouldn't have issue the Emancipation Proclomation.

3. Peanut Butter defines my life. George Washington Carver is one of my heroes. So much for certain people's theories on Black folk not inventin' anything.

4. Any Black Americans relocated to Africa would have brought their society - an industrilized democratic society - with them. And with the US as their colonial owner, they wouldn't have been touched much by outside forces (Read: European). Who knows, maybe a good portion of Africa would be a First World area today. Probably halfway between Third and First, but - it'd probably be an improvement.

5. I forgot to say this, but Ratha Loves Numbered Posts.

Good God I'm the only Lincoln hater here!

No, you're not. But then again, I'm not happy with either Lincoln or Bush.

Lincoln was the one who started the central-government-overrules-the-states-be-damned.

One is about as bad as the other, but I'd have to pick Lincoln, since he set the precedent.

You might be interested in reading this article by Thomas DiLorenzo: http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics%20and%20History/Lincoln/hanging_the_sioux.htm

We do not know if they were black or not. We know they were in an area that is now black. The blacks could have moved in later.
AHAHAHAHAHAHA.


That's the best statement I've heard today. Congrats troll, you're ignored.

I think this poll is rather biased, as Lincoln freed the slaves, while Georgy bombed 2 nations. Put up some more options!

Nitpicks:

1. Lincoln didn't free any slaves. At least, not right away, and not in the North, either. Go re-read the Emancipation Proclomation again, and carefully.
2. If you really wanted to be picky, Lincoln invaded another nation and reduced it to rubble, then occupied it with armies until 1871, negating all local laws in favor of Military Governors edicts.


Remember, to quote the great Obi Wan Kenobi, all this is true "from a certain point of view". ;)

Nitpicks:

1. Lincoln didn't free any slaves. At least, not right away, and not in the North, either. Go re-read the Emancipation Proclomation again, and carefully.
2. If you really wanted to be picky, Lincoln invaded another nation and reduced it to rubble, then occupied it with armies until 1871, negating all local laws in favor of Military Governors edicts.


Remember, to quote the great Obi Wan Kenobi, all this is true "from a certain point of view". ;)
Actually, he did, just quite a bit later then it appears. Recall the amendments?

Nitpicks:

1. Lincoln didn't free any slaves. At least, not right away, and not in the North, either. Go re-read the Emancipation Proclomation again, and carefully.
2. If you really wanted to be picky, Lincoln invaded another nation and reduced it to rubble, then occupied it with armies until 1871, negating all local laws in favor of Military Governors edicts.


Remember, to quote the great Obi Wan Kenobi, all this is true "from a certain point of view". ;)
Nitpick on #2. The CSA was never a sovereign nation. No government in the world ever recognized it as one. Also, the CSA attacked the USA, not the other way around. You might as well condemn Britain for sending troops into Germany near the end of WWII.

Very true, but during that time period in America, there was prejudice, racism and stereotypes. Now, no one can change another person's mind or opinion so nevertheless there was going to be racism whether the black people liked it or not. The fact that Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation and gave rights to black people shows that Lincoln had some compassion in his heart and he also saw the evil in black people being slaves. Even though he was a tad bit racist himself, he still helped the African people.

Now....Bush.....
First of all, he is messing around in affairs he should not be like the War in Iraq. This war was completly unnecessary and because of him over 12,000+ people (including soldiers) are dead. And yet there are still insurgents fighting them back. Bush calls it "spreading democracy" I call it "IMPERIALISM"!! Not only that, Bush is stupid beyond recognition. He has no idea what tribal sovereignty means so as a result he bullshits. Want proof? Right here:

http://media.ebaumsworld.com/sovereignty.mov

the iraqi people, vast majority, showed their appreciation for their freedom.

so... how is the war unnecessary? Was Saddam just going to step down and stop oppressing the 80% Kurd/Shi'a majority?

do you think that making people free isn't worthwhile?

you do value freedom, do you not?

the iraqi people, vast majority, showed their appreciation for their freedom.

so... how is the war unnecessary? Was Saddam just going to step down and stop oppressing the 80% Kurd/Shi'a majority?

do you think that making people free isn't worthwhile?

you do value freedom, do you not?

I guess the point is, we don't have the right to invade someone else's country, until they actually attack us.

I value freedom in spades--I am a Libertarian after all--that's what we're about. We need to get our own freedoms back to us in the US before concentrating on anything else.

Bigots can be REALLY funny sometimes. Example:
Anyone who hates Lincoln more than Bush are fucking racists and should be crucified with rusty nails. I dont care if I get modded, these people deserve it!!! I bet they are all part of the fuckin KKK. SHOOT THE FAGGOTS!!
Notice how they are calling people who disagree with them "racists"...then ends the tirade by calling them an epithet against homosexuals.

Quite humorous in a pathetic way.

I guess the point is, we don't have the right to invade someone else's country, until they actually attack us.

I value freedom in spades--I am a Libertarian after all--that's what we're about. We need to get our own freedoms back to us in the US before concentrating on anything else.

Thank you! I keep wondering who died and made us the guardians of the world? When the citizens of those other countries decide that freedom is important to them, I'm sure they'll rise up and do something about it. Until then, we should butt out - because for the most part, they don't really seem to appreciate our efforts on their behalf all that much.