NationStates Jolt Archive

Wilson was an uncompromising bastard, true, but the fact remains that the had the League of Nations not been included, it would have been accepted.

And Wilson having all Democrats with him and ZERO Republicans had nothing to do with it getting rejected. Yea right.

Lies. FDR was well aware that the Japanese were preparing an attack. He let it happen so the American people would be willing to follow him on his neo-imperialist conquests.

*dies of sudden laughter*

Oh my god. Now your going into conspiracy theory. Tell me, is this ignorance playacting or do you actually believe the crap you are typing?

Im with Corneliu about FDR he was horrible presdient.

I never said he was a horrible President :rolleyes: I said he was responsible for the deficit we have today. They are not the same thing.

Actually US Congress rejected the treaty, that is not Wilsons fault he wanted them to approve the treaty.

Actually US Congress rejected the treaty, that is not Wilsons fault he wanted them to approve the treaty.

Actually, if Wilson had included the Republicans in his trip to the signing, he might've actually had his treaty passed here in the United States. He didn't have a single republican and it ultimately cost him.

I hereby publicly apologize to Corneliu. I misread his/her (sorry don't know which) statment. I assume you meant something else maybe that he was bad and that is of course different from horrible. I assume that you think defecits are bad (this was the edit here)

Im with Corneliu about FDR he was horrible presdient. His alphabet soup program ruined this country creating a welfare state and eventually led to the idea that Social Security should be your enitre retirement. Even FDR saw it as something merely to keep people out of the poor house. FDR did not end the depression the War did. The War wasa good thing kicked Hitler ass (theirs a racist for you) and Hirohito (also a crackpot). Provoked the Japanese?? They had been taking over the Pacific for years Hawaii was only one of their goals, they happend to piss of the mighty USofA. Yes FDR was a horrible president Lincoln was a great president, he kept our country one. Yes other might have but he was the one who got elected, it does not matter by how small of a margin one gets elected all that matters is that one gets elected. Oh about the unequal representation 7 of the pre-war presidens were from the south (another two were from TN). The south had created theri economic POS themselves by basing everything on slavery and thus did not have a diverse economy. They had bad education for most people, oh and poor roads and railroads and canals (all of which contributed to their defeat). But I am getting offcourse, FDR was one of the worst. But the prize goes to Jimmy Carter was the worst American president ever, and despite all his failings I don't think Bush will go down as the worst not even close to it. Lincoln is among the best this group inlcudes Washington and Reagan.

As an economic moderate, I have trouble seeing where the hell this nonsense about FDR comes from. I would understand critiscising his totallitarian social policies, but the New Deal was necessary in turning America away from the corporate hellhole it had been to a slightly less corporate hellhole. Far Righty's bitch and moan, but FDR set us in the right direction away from the BS Lesseize Faire hell. That said, FDR took things as far as they should go, for the most part, and we should stop pushing the pocket (or the pocketbook). Carter is certainly awful, but I'm going to give worst president award to one Warren G. Harding, with Richard Nixon and Ulyses S. Grant pulling into a tie for second (Carter can have 4th or 5th though). Bush may well take 1st, but I'll have to wait til he exits office to rule on that. Reagan was one of the worst (but by no means the worst) presidents, what with his death squads in South America, The Iran Contra deal, his support of "christian" "morality", and his habit of bending over for big corporations (so much for lesseize faire, more like corporate whore). Washington does next to nothing as President and is only important for his farewell adress, which is a good message, at it's time, but can't really be seen as visionary, seeing it's costs in the early 20th century until today.

I hereby publicly apologize to Corneliu. I misread his/her (sorry don't know which) statment. I assume you meant something else maybe that he was bad and that is of course different from horrible.

Apology accepted :)

I never said he was a horrible President :rolleyes: I said he was responsible for the deficit we have today. They are not the same thing.
ehhhhh, in a sense, but this argument would lead to the validity of the New Deal programs, so I'm not going to get into that. There have also been many other things, and much more government expansion since. Example: We're still paying off the Chrystler bail out in the 80's, Reagan spent billions and billions in a time of peace, and Soviet Union was going to collapse anyway, he didn't have to do it in the magnitude that he did. And Bush II by far is the worst in fiscal management as far as the debt and deficits are concerned. But yeah, FDR is responsible for a lot of the deficit today.

And Wilson having all Democrats with him and ZERO Republicans had nothing to do with it getting rejected. Yea right.
The American people were isolationist. Don't tell me that had nothing to do with it.
Oh my god. Now your going into conspiracy theory. Tell me, is this ignorance playacting or do you actually believe the crap you are typing?
Of course I beleive it.

Oh and FDR created the large federal beaucracy which has sent us into death. and about Reagan no he was not perfect but he did help end communism (i stress the help). Oh and he rebuilt the US military after Carter ruined it. Washington is only great because he helped create the office. Lincoln was great because he saved the Union, and the other worst (minus Reagn and BushII) I agree with. Although yes I am conservative I do nto think Clintoon is on that worst list, nor is he on the great. Oh and Corpoations despite their failures are good, I think the fact the Enron is a rarity speaks to that.

The American people were isolationist. Don't tell me that had nothing to do with it.

It didnt

Of course I beleive it.

Somehow, I'm not surprised by the answer. Tell me, what sources do you use for historical informatin that has been throughly trashed?

Hey, it got us out of the depression. And how exactly did we provoke the Japanese before Pearl Harbor? And the Japanese internment was the only major stain against the FDR administration. Many others have been able to get worse stains in less time. Dems and Reps alike.
No, unless you say that he got the US into war which got us out of the Depression.

1936 was the worst year of the Depression for the US, and this is while the rest of the world was starting to recover. Deficit spending eroded the value of the dollar, all the smart investors (Henry Morgenthau and companies favorable to the administration) put thier money into gold before the federal government ended private ownership of gold.

All that was needed was an errosion of investor confidence in the currency by fiat to trigger a round of hyper inflation and destroy what the economic crash did not. Something that might very well have happend (there was a dramatic rise in the cost of living and a decline in purchasing power in 1938) if not for a rapid expansion of defense industries.

Somehow, I'm not surprised by the answer. Tell me, what sources do you use for historical informatin that has been throughly trashed?
Mostly, I look at the accepted statist trash available and draw my own conclusions based on common sense and apply my understanding about how the government lies about current events.

Mostly, I look at the accepted statist trash available and draw my own conclusions based on common sense and apply my understanding about how the government lies about current events.

And I get my sources from historians who have studied this topic indepth. I'll take the historians over yours anyday.

BTW: your statements still have been trashed.

No, unless you say that he got the US into war which got us out of the Depression.

Actually World War II did get us out of the depression. It wasn't anything FDR did.

No, unless you say that he got the US into war which got us out of the Depression. What else would I mean?

Actually World War II did get us out of the depression. It wasn't anything FDR did.
FDR got us into WW2 and got 200,000 Americans killed.

You're All Idiots, Especially The Guy That Started This Thread.

Troll!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

FDR got us into WW2 and got 200,000 Americans killed.

Wrong on 2 counts.

First, he didn't get us into World War II.

Second, 400,000 Americans were killed.

Can't even get casualty numbers right. :rolleyes:

I'll wait for your concession speech at anytime.

FDR got us into WW2 and got 200,000 Americans killed.
dear god, are you arguing that we shouldn't have gotten involved in WWII?

FDR got us into WW2 and got 200,000 Americans killed.
I think now would be a proper time for each one of us to bow our heads and hum softly the tune of "Springtime for Hitler".

Lyrics provided:
http://www.stlyrics.com/lyrics/theproducers/springtimeforhitler.htm

dear god, are you arguing that we shouldn't have gotten involved in WWII?

I hope he does. Then I can toss his own words back at him. As soon as I find it.

Wrong on 2 counts.

First, he didn't get us into World War II.

Second, 400,000 Americans were killed.

Can't even get casualty numbers right. :rolleyes:
So I got some numbers wrong, whatever.
dear god, are you arguing that we shouldn't have gotten involved in WWII?
I am against all non-revolutionary wars, and am against the vast majority of those. Nothing is worse than war.

What else would I mean?
I misread you statement to read:

He got us out of the depression.

I apologize.

FDR's economic policies where ruinous, and in all likelyhood prolonged the depression.

I am against all non-revolutionary wars, and am against the vast majority of those. Nothing is worse than war.
I beg to differ. I believe the holocaust was worse than war. Not to mention Hitler's ultimate goal of European domination.

I beg to differ. I believe the holocaust was worse than war. Not to mention Hitler's ultimate goal of European domination.

Didn't Hitler wanted WORLD domination?

I misread you statement to read:

He got us out of the depression.

I apologize.

FDR's economic policies where ruinous, and in all likelyhood prolonged the depression.
Very well likely, but it's also as likely someone else as incompetent as Hoover would have made the depression a lot worse. There's no way to tell. And he saw a depression, world war, and still didn't push the nation toward bankruptcy like our current president is doing.

*gives Achtung 45 a cookie (for the WWII statement not the comment on Bush)

As a current history major the inhumanity that humans can do is sickening. Hitler is only one of many and tragically not the worse.

So I got some numbers wrong, whatever.

If your going to argue History and if your going to use casualty numbers, with me, they better be correct or I will call you on them. Of course, I've been calling your arguements all night because they are inaccurate. Just as the OPs opening post was inaccurate.

Jeez. I'm on a role in this thread. Hammered on so many things with facts its not even funny.

Despite what your statist, propagandizing government school tells you, Abraham Lincoln was the worst president in the history of the United States. The Civil War, as it's called by the North, or the War for Southern Independence, as it's more accurately called by the South, was actually just Lincoln's War to Enslave the States.

About 600,000-680,000 Americans were unjustly slaughtered, many of them black. African-Americans, after the War ended, lived a much less happy life as a result of Lincoln's crusade to destroy the South rather than let them peacefully abolish slavery as they would have done without the War.

Abraham Lincoln hated churches and Christianity. A book by Lincoln was burned by his friend William Herndon to prevent it from getting published. The book was against the Bible and Christianity; had it been published, Lincoln would have himself been obliterated, and after the incident Lincoln chose to hide his anti-Christian prejudice and make himself look better by using sneaky words.

He never actually intended to end slavery; in his inaugural address, he stated so, and promoted a bill that would amend the Constitution, making slavery a permanent institution (obviously the bill was turned down -- otherwise we'd still have slaves today). And he was also a racist.


If you're having trouble understanding why Lincoln was evil but you understand "Star Wars," read the article "Episode II: Art Imitates Life (http://www.lewrockwell.com/dieteman/dieteman113.html)."

The Declaration of Independence eloquently states, "[W]henever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." The South was establishing a new country based on the principles of the Declaration of Independence: that they have the inherent, God-given right to secede. They were not doing evil because their intent was not simply to create a nation of slave-owners, as most Southerners did not own slaves and were more concerned with Rights. Robert E. Lee, as a matter of fact, freed his slaves as soon as he could, and one of them happily went on to become his wartime cook.

The South was inevitably going to peacefully abolish slavery. Lincoln's intent was not to emancipate slaves in his War, but to establish the Federal Government as the Supreme Governing Body and to ensure that blacks never stole white jobs. He did not believe in the Right of Secession -- it is a God-given right, and although Lincoln pretended to believe in God to get public support, he was a known atheist.

Lincoln was also the true rebel. If the South has the right to secede for righteous reasons (avoiding a tyrannical government), then the South has done nothing wrong, and Lincoln is therefore the rebel opposed to what he called a "rebellion."

We can also draw connections from Lincoln to today. Lincoln's proponents claim the war was to "free" slaves, and Bush's proponents claim Bush is "freeing" Iraq and Afghanistan. Lincoln forcefully emancipated the slaves who survived (of course many died), enslaved the states, and now Bush is making the lives of Iraqis worse and enslaving America to the unConstitutional and unBiblical "New World Order." It is not our duty to stop tyranny elsewhere, and often just makes matters worse.

Lincoln's unlawful dictatorship has never ceased, even after his assassination. His cruelness has been immortalized because Good Men have done nothing. Today, we live in a racist, socialist, compartmentalist, fascist society. We pay the unConstitutional income tax, and it's managed by a private corporation, which is corporatism, another word for fascism -- the marriage of the private corps. and the State. Lincoln's bloody war created rampant racism by using a War as a means to rapidly transform the lives of blacks and whites, something for which neither group was ready. Lincoln instituted the idea that it's okay to ravage our nation's Constitution, violating it wherever possible. Such has created socialistic public schools (unConstitutional and unBiblical) which brainwash children to worship the State and force families to use their own money to pay for their neighbors' education and other welfares.

Lincoln was clearly the worst President in US History. He was not an American, not a Christian, and not an Emancipator. He was America's Caesar. My Great Great Grand father fought with the 103rd OVI
And helped burn Atlanta to the ground, I 'd like to think he pissed on Confederate soldiers while he raped their wives..God blees old Abe..he was a great man..the only probelm is reconstruction ended to quickly..fucking hilly billy-long live socialism!:sniper:

*gives Achtung 45 a cookie (for the WWII statement not the comment on Bush)

As a current history major the inhumanity that humans can do is sickening. Hitler is only one of many and tragically not the worse.

I'm a history major myself as well as a Poli Sci major and I agree with this statement.

Didn't Hitler wanted WORLD domination?
lol, I put that at first, then I thought "noooo, that's a bit of a stretch." I guess I was wrong? (or, right...:confused: ) :p

I beg to differ. I believe the holocaust was worse than war. Not to mention Hitler's ultimate goal of European domination.
Stalin killed more people than Hitler, but we didn't have any problem working with him.
Besides, I had nothing to do with the holocaust, why should I care? Your guilt-trip tactics won't work on me.

Very well likely, but it's also as likely someone else as incompetent as Hoover would have made the depression a lot worse. There's no way to tell. And he saw a depression, world war, and still didn't push the nation toward bankruptcy like our current president is doing.
he saved capitalism, he was the best president ever. long live socialism!:sniper:

I'm a history major myself as well as a Poli Sci major and I agree with this statement.
so is that cookie #4 then? :D

Stalin killed more people than Hitler, but we didn't have any problem working with him.
Besides, I had nothing to do with the holocaust, why should I care? Your guilt-trip tactics won't work on me. ha your a closet jew hating nazi
-sincerely the mossad

*gives Achtung 45 a cookie (for the WWII statement not the comment on Bush)

As a current history major the inhumanity that humans can do is sickening. Hitler is only one of many and tragically not the worse.
But why was it our job to fix it?

lol, I put that at first, then I thought "noooo, that's a bit of a stretch." I guess I was wrong? (or, right...:confused: ) :p

We'lll he did split the middle east with Japan. They did plan to meet there so.....

so is that cookie #4 then? :D

Oh sure why not. I think you earned it. Just don't eat to many of them. They'll give you an upset tummy and I'm out of Alka Seltzer.

If your going to argue History and if your going to use casualty numbers, with me, they better be correct or I will call you on them. Of course, I've been calling your arguements all night because they are inaccurate. Just as the OPs opening post was inaccurate.

Jeez. I'm on a role in this thread. Hammered on so many things with facts its not even funny.
You have not destroyed a single one of my arguments. I may have had some minor inaccuracies, but the core of my arguments remains.
ha your a closet jew hating nazi
If I hated the Jews, you would know.

Stalin killed more people than Hitler, but we didn't have any problem working with him.
Besides, I had nothing to do with the holocaust, why should I care? Your guilt-trip tactics won't work on me.
Not if you count the all deaths of WWII and holocaust as a result of Hitler's barbaric actions. Some 40 million people, I believe. And I wasn't trying to use "guilt-trip" tactics. I was merely stating my opinion.

But why was it our job to fix it?

We helped in fixing it. We didn't fix it alone.

It was rather hard not to get involved in WW2 after Japan attacked Pearl "Harbor".

BTW, during the Great Depression the unemployment rate did not drop below 10% until 1942. The New Deal reduced the unemployment rate from something like 25% at its peak in 1933 to the high teens for the rest of the 30s.
With the outbreak of War:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression#In_the_United_States
Between 1939 and 1944 (the peak of wartime production), the nation's output more than doubled. Consequently, unemployment plummeted—from 19% in 1938 (already down from 1933's 24.9% peak) to 1.2% in 1944—as the labor force grew by ten million.

That is where you are wrong my friend.

Missouri (slave) Kentucky (slave) Maryland (slave) All northern states and all had slavery.

Those three states were border states, right?

Waitaminute, I thought the Missouri Compromise of 1820-21? outlawed slavery in missouri? Or was it Maine? Aw, forgetit.

Oh sure why not. I think you earned it. Just don't eat to many of them. They'll give you an upset tummy and I'm out of Alka Seltzer.
You two are just further proof that conservatives really aren’t all that different from socialists. You’re both statist scum.

You have not destroyed a single one of my arguments. I may have had some minor inaccuracies, but the core of my arguments remains.

MINOR?!! *dies of laughter* You have been hammered my friend by both me and Achtung who I hardly ever agree with. The core of your arguement has been thoroughly trashed I don't see why you cling to them.

You have not destroyed a single one of my arguments. I may have had some minor inaccuracies, but the core of my arguments remains.
Which is? You're an extreme isolationist? Well nothing we say will ever change that. If you're against us getting involved in WWII, there's no point in continuing.

Despite what your statist, propagandizing government school tells you, Abraham Lincoln was the worst president in the history of the United States....

Lincoln was clearly the worst President in US History. He was not an American, not a Christian, and not an Emancipator. He was America's Caesar.

Lincoln was the worst president? Have you heard of George W. Bush?

Abe may have been America's Caesar, but W is America's Hitler.


i don't agree with American imperialism, but the Civil War wasn't about that.

Those three states were border states, right?

Waitaminute, I thought the Missouri Compromise of 1820-21? outlawed slavery in missouri? Or was it Maine? Aw, forgetit.

The Missouri Compromise was ruled unconstitutional with Dread Scott and no, the Missouri Compromise allowed Missouri (yes a border state but still slave) as a slave state and Maine as a free state.

You two are just further proof that conservatives really aren’t all that different from socialists. You’re both statist scum.

I know for a fact that Achtung is not conservative. As for me, I am conservative but I also believe in a free market society free from governmental control.

he saved capitalism, he was the best president ever.

actually Hitler saved American capitalism, and frankly I wish he hadn't.

But why was it our job to fix it?

Yes it is because we are nice people who dont believe in genocide and mass murder. Hitler deserved what he got, death and the wim killed himself and Saddam was found in hole (btw Saddam admired Hitler). yes it was our job as the freedom loving west to "fix" it. and you are racist, jew hating, probably hate gays too.

We helped in fixing it. We didn't fix it alone.
Of course, but we had no business being involved at all.
Not if you count the all deaths of WWII and holocaust as a result of Hitler's barbaric actions.
Are you saying the actions of the Allies were civilized? One word, Dresden.
Both sides were contemptible.
Besides, the war wouldn't have escalated to the point it did if the British and French had kept up appeasement. There would have probably only been a war in Eastern Europe.

You have been hammered my friend by both me and Achtung who I hardly ever agree with.
lol, that's the understatement of the day.

I know for a fact that Achtung is not conservative. As for me, I am conservative but I also believe in a free market society free from governmental control.
Than how can you not hate FDR? You worship the state. Deal with it.
Pfft, I bet you respect the flag and all that useless shit that goes along with it.

Of course, but we had no business being involved at all.

For once I agree with you however, Japan attacked us without declaring war first on December 7 and a few days later, Germany and Italy declared war on us. Oops! I guess we did have business in it after all. At least in the Pacific Theater.

Are you saying the actions of the Allies were civilized? One word, Dresden.

As opposed to Coventry?

Both sides were contemptible.
Besides, the war wouldn't have escalated to the point it did if the British and French had kept up appeasement. There would have probably only been a war in Eastern Europe.

It was because of Appeasement that lead to the whole damn thing Undelia.

lol, that's the understatement of the day.

And its only 1236 AM! :D

Man, I should be in bed, I have class in 7.5 hours.

Are you saying the actions of the Allies were civilized? One word, Dresden.
Both sides were contemptible.
Besides, the war wouldn't have escalated to the point it did if the British and French had kept up appeasement. There would have probably only been a war in Eastern Europe.
Of course both sides were contemptible. Intentional bombing of civilians, that's not really what I call civilized, but the point remains. I shudder to think of what had happened if we hadn't had intervened and Hitler had won. Yes, a lot of the blame lies on Britain and France for being assholes to Germany with the treaty of Versailles, but by using the same logic, you can place all the blame on the little dickhead who killed Francis Ferdinand. Then there would have been no WWI, no holocaust, and no WWII. But now's not the time to play theoretical history.

Wow so you're saying that basically most every masters level degree historian is wrong about Lincoln being the one of the best presidents....:rolleyes: . Now please enlighten us where you got this information, certainly not in school because according to you schools are being somewhat deceitful in what they teach about American History. Oh and those articles that are critical of Lincoln, give me 15 seconds and I can find 30 articles online about how eating feces is a great way to stop hairloss. Just because something is written and published doesn't make it right.

Than how can you not hate FDR? You worship the state. Deal with it.

I don't hate him because he led this country through perhaps the greatest crisis since the American Civil War. He may have sucked as a domestic President but in the realm of Foreign Policy? I may not have agreed with all of it but I did agree with most of it.

Pfft, I bet you respect the flag and all that useless shit that goes along with it.

haha. My father defends the flag every single day for the last 33 years. My mother served the flag for 6 years and I had uncles and a cousin who served the flag as well. I'm the biggest US Patriot around around here probably. Just ask Achtung here :D

For once I agree with you however, Japan attacked us without declaring war first on December 7 and a few days later, Germany and Italy declared war on us. Oops! I guess we did have business in it after all. At least in the Pacific Theater.
FDR provoked the Japanese and provide aid and comfort to the allies. What were they supposed to do, ignore us?
As opposed to Coventry?

Didn't your mother ever teach you that two wrongs don't make a right?
It was because of Appeasement that lead to the whole damn thing Undelia.
No, it was because Chamberlain was too much of a screw up to follow through with appeasement. He should have let Poland fall. It wasn't his business to get involved.

And its only 1236 AM! :D

Man, I should be in bed, I have class in 7.5 hours.
ah, 2240 here.


...of yesterday :p

Such has created socialistic public schools (unConstitutional and unBiblical) which brainwash children to worship the State and force families to use their own money to pay for their neighbors' education and other welfares.

Lincoln was clearly the worst President in US History. He was not an American, not a Christian, and not an Emancipator. He was America's Caesar.


First off, I would like to remind you that there is a seperation of church and state in this country so if it's unbiblical, chances are it's more constitutional. secoundly, Lincoln was about as republican as it got in those days (as you can see by todays "standards" things have changed) and finally you might want to check your sources, because brainwashing works on all people.

Also, to say he was America's Caesar is just wrong since, if your logic is to be followed, Lincoln was an evil dictator who hated freedom and sounds like some of the communist propagada posters of old, where as Caesar was one of the greatest leaders rome ever had. His caring for the common man is what got him killed.

haha. My father defends the flag every single day for the last 33 years. My mother served the flag for 6 years and I had uncles and a cousin who served the flag as well. I'm the biggest US Patriot around around here probably. Just ask Achtung here :D
Hmm. Tell me. What is it like for one's entire family to be traitors to the people?

That original post makes Lincoln seem pretty bad, but at the same time, even accepting it as truth... the worst president? I mean, whether or not the South had a just cause, the preservation of the Union was a prerequisite for America as we know it today. In addition to keeping the South (not that big a deal in my opinion) winning the Civil War also allowed the US to expand west and take territories from Native Americans and Mexico. And while I don't think the original taking was a good thing, it's not like nothing good came of it.
Plus, I've heard Harding was a pretty bad president.

Hmm. Tell me. What is it like for one's entire family to be traitors to the people?
Wow.

FDR provoked the Japanese and provide aid and comfort to the allies. What were they supposed to do, ignore us?

We back to that kick again? didn't we already trashed this once? Want it trashed again?

Didn't your mother ever teach you that two wrongs don't make a right?

Yes she did however she also taught me there is a time to defend yourself. Having half your pacific fleet blown up seemed like a good idea to stand up for yourself and fight back.

No, it was because Chamberlain was too much of a screw up to follow through with appeasement. He should have let Poland fall. It wasn't his business to get involved.

I guess you forgot about a little thing called an alliance? Also, it was appeasement that led Hitler to believe that Britain and France wouldn't follow through on their alliance with Poland! Boy was Hitler wrong? It was through Appeasement he gained Austria. It was through appeasement he gained Czechoslovakia. As I said, it was appeasement that caused World War II. If Britain and France had just stopped Hitler from re-arming instead of letting him re-armed, I doubt it would've been as extensive as it was.

As I said, go back and actually learn a little history. Apparently you failed not only 101 but 106 as well.

Corneliu Im on break so go to bed. I'll take you spot as the conservative. Undeliu what do you think of Armenian Genocide, Stalin's Gulags, the milliosn killed in Russia to put communism in place, the "work camps" in communist Russia, Pol Pot, Balkans, Saddam, Taliban, Rawanda (f**** UN learn to fire a gun when they kill our soldiers), Uganda, Sudan, (i could go on). Should we as a free world not do what we can to stop these. Or should we let one despotic dictator after another kill their own people? An numbers are important you incensitve prick, those are human souls 200,000 that you forgot about. And no not every country is perfect but War is hell.

Hmm. Tell me. What is it like for one's entire family to be traitors to the people?
Wow. I think you've gone far enough. Quite now while you're not completely flattened.

ah, 2240 here.


...of yesterday :p

Ok, you have me there but I won't give you a cookie right now because you had enough. :D

Hmm. Tell me. What is it like for one's entire family to be traitors to the people?

*bites back a very very bad retort*

Your lucky you are not within arms reach of me at this very moment. The last one to insult my family, I place him hard on his butt.

Wow. I think you've gone far enough. Quite now while you're not completely flattened.

I think that post should be reported for flaming personally.

Ok, you have me there but I won't give you a cookie right now because you had enough. :D
lol, true conservative :p

We back to that kick again? didn't we already trashed this once? Want it trashed again?
It was never trashed.
Yes she did however she also taught me there is a time to defend yourself. Having half your pacific fleet blown up seemed like a good idea to stand up for yourself and fight back.
There is a time to take responsibility for your actions and stop pissing off every other country on earth. We aren't special.
I guess you forgot about a little thing called an alliance? Also, it was appeasement that led Hitler to believe that Britain and France wouldn't follow through on their alliance with Poland! Boy was Hitler wrong? It was through Appeasement he gained Austria. It was through appeasement he gained Czechoslovakia. As I said, it was appeasement that caused World War II. If Britain and France had just stopped Hitler from re-arming instead of letting him re-armed, I doubt it would've been as extensive as it was.
First of all, Austria and Czecholslavakia (the Sudenland at least) were all for becoming part of Germany. They should have broken their alliance with Poland. Hell, plenty of Poles welcomed Hitler's armies as well.

I think that post should be reported for flaming personally.
Yeah, flamebaiting at least. I have many relatives who've served as well. I mean, being against war is one thing, being against the people who serve to defend this country when absolutely necissary is another.

Corneliu i think we all got you back on this one. Can you say thank you to every member of your family for keeping us safe? Oh and Undelia they are procteing your right to say this trash so how do you get off calling them traitors?
12:50 am EST (USA)

It was never trashed.

Yea it was.

There is a time to take responsibility for your actions and stop pissing off every other country on earth. We aren't special.

No we're not! So tell me why we were going for a PEACEFULL solution while Japan embarked to war?

First of all, Austria and Czecholslavakia (the Sudenland at least) were all for becoming part of Germany. They should have broken their alliance with Poland. Hell, plenty of Poles welcomed Hitler's armies as well.

Not Czechoslovakia. They were forced into the Nazi Empire. As to your last line, I would love to see proof of it.

Just...ouch, man. I had a few distant relatives get themselves killed for the forlorn hope that was the CSA...but I don't hate President Lincoln. He did his duty as he saw it, and I'd say the world is a better place for it. Was it the black and white (no pun intended) conflict that it's sometimes shown as? No. Was it a "war of Northern aggression"? Also no.
It was basically a bad idea that went too far. Had the South won, I'm fairly sure I'd be living in a Third World country these days.

Corneliu i think we all got you back on this one.Even me, which is really saying something, as he pointed out earlier.

Yeah, flamebaiting at least. I have many relatives who've served as well. I mean, being against war is one thing, being against the people who serve to defend this country when absolutely necissary is another.

I already reported it. I know you are against the current war but I know you never insulted the troops and have gone after those that have and I thank you for that. I know I give you a hard time about your war opposition and I would like to apologize for giving you such a hard time about it.

*bites back a very very bad retort*

Your lucky you are not within arms reach of me at this very moment. The last one to insult my family, I place him hard on his butt.
Too close to the truth for you? As I have said before, any man or woman who volunteers to be a member of a standing army is a traitor to the people. They are the reason we don't have gay marriage in this country and that a person isn't free to enjoy what substances they wish in the privacy of their own home. They are the agents of oppression.

Yeah, flamebaiting at least. I have many relatives who've served as well. I mean, being against war is one thing, being against the people who serve to defend this country when absolutely necissary is another.
In all honesty, given my current views, I'd probably would have been against us getting involved in World War II if I lived in the late 30's to 40's. I'm not sure how I'd have reacted to Pearl Harbor. But if it were possible for me to know everything that I know now about Hitler and the Holocaust, I would have been the first to enlist.

I meant that to sort of back you up... but I'm tired and that's how it came out.

Corneliu i think we all got you back on this one.Even me, which is really saying something, as he pointed out earlier.

I know you two do but now this has gotten personal. I'm just glad I held back what I really wanted to say.

As to your last line, I would love to see proof of it.
I have the comments of many enraged and betrayed Polish Jews to back that up.
No we're not! So tell me why we were going for a PEACEFULL solution while Japan embarked to war?
As I said, FDR knew that Japan was going to attack. He probably expected the atack to come at the Philipines, but there was a reason the carriers weren't at Pearl Harbor, just in case.

Very well likely, but it's also as likely someone else as incompetent as Hoover would have made the depression a lot worse. There's no way to tell. And he saw a depression, world war, and still didn't push the nation toward bankruptcy like our current president is doing.
The US was facing a stagnant (depressed) economy and run away inflation. Now we jface run away infation and a credit crisis :(

BTW, during the Great Depression the unemployment rate did not drop below 10% until 1942. The New Deal reduced the unemployment rate from something like 25% at its peak in 1933 to the high teens for the rest of the 30s.
With the outbreak of War:
It was a short term fix, at best. Real buying power was dropping, non-governemt job growth was slow (and some areas contracted further) and the economy was heading toward (further) capital flight, and possible collapse of the currency.

Taxes where increased, it was largely with excise taxes (more than income tax) which are largely regressive. So the new deal was financed by the very people it was meant to help... it was a brilliant scheme! :D
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3357

Now his administration would have been truly great if they could have created a nation wide Ponzi-scheme.

I already reported it. I know you are against the current war but I know you never insulted the troops and have gone after those that have and I thank you for that. I know I give you a hard time about your war opposition and I would like to apologize for giving you such a hard time about it.
lol, apology accepted. It's perfectly fine, I think that's what makes this country so unique. I would also like to apologize to you because I know I've given you some hard times in return, but it's all in good fun, no? And it gives me something to occupy my time with, but now I think you should get some sleep for your classes, and I need to read up on some government, so I best be leaving. This was by far the most rational debate we've had. Just look at how many cookies we've eaten :D

Corneliu good for you on holding back (i think we all did) all that proves is you are the better person. hey my brother served as did two of my uncles and my grandfather (Pacific Theater). I love this country and nobody deserves our support more then the troops

I have the comments of many enraged and betrayed Polish Jews to back that up.

I would love to see proof of it.

As I said, FDR knew that Japan was going to attack.

Proof?

He probably expected the atack to come at the Philipines, but there was a reason the carriers weren't at Pearl Harbor, just in case.

Oh for pete's sake, the US military believed the Philippines were going to be the target of a Japanese offensive. It would've been more logical. That is what made the surprise even more complete.

Don't you guys know the Civil War wasn't really about black rights? It was about states' rights, and slavery was simply a strong example that the South could use. Not one Southern state voted for Abraham Lincoln . . . and he still became president because the North (including the West like California) had more electoral votes.

After the North walked out on the LeCompton Constitution (which was completely legal, just not morally straight) and Congress refused it, the South must have felt completely powerless.

And what about the Emancipation Proclamation? Do you think it freed the slaves? Not really. It freed the slaves in the states rebelling against the Union; therefore, they were not truly free until the war was over. It wasn't really emancipation at all, it just made it look that way so that Great Britain and other countries wouldn't support the South (many countries were dependant on the South's cotton).

Plus, the North passed laws to prhibit freed slaves from travelling to those states. They wanted to free the states, but they didn't want them around themselves. The truth is, both the North and the South were racist. THE CIVIL WAR WAS NOT ABOUT RACISM.

That being said, I agree that Abraham Lincoln wasn't as great as he is cracked up to be, but by no standards was he evil or a bad leader. He brought America through the Civil War; that must have been a fight enough.

lol, apology accepted. It's perfectly fine, I think that's what makes this country so unique. I would also like to apologize to you because I know I've given you some hard times in return, but it's all in good fun, no? And it gives me something to occupy my time with, but now I think you should get some sleep for your classes, and I need to read up on some government, so I best be leaving. This was by far the most rational debate we've had. Just look at how many cookies we've eaten :D

So very true. Luckily for me, I can survive on a few hours sleep. Coffee will come in handy tomorrow :D

In all honesty, given my current views, I'd probably would have been against us getting involved in World War II if I lived in the late 30's to 40's. I'm not sure how I'd have reacted to Pearl Harbor. But if it were possible for me to know everything that I know now about Hitler and the Holocaust, I would have been the first to enlist.

I meant that to sort of back you up... but I'm tired and that's how it came out.
Yeah, and that's the thing though. Many Allied soldiers knew nothing of the holocaust, or at the very least just rumours of concentration camps. They had no idea humans could be so uncompassionate towards one another and couldn't comprehend it until they actually rolled up to camp. And I'm getting tired too, so if uncompassionate isn't a word, excuse me.

*snip*

I have a question?

Did you read the thread?

So very true. Luckily for me, I can survive on a few hours sleep. Coffee will come in handy tomorrow :D
Haha, good luck. I'll look forward to arguing with you later.

I would love to see proof of it.
The Polish people got the Jews houses. Wouldn't you be happy?
proof
It's called the McCollum memo.
Oh for pete's sake, the US military believed the Philippines were going to be the target of a Japanese offensive. It would've been more logical. That is what made the surprise even more complete.
Then why weren't the carriers with the rest of the fleet?

Haha, good luck. I'll look forward to arguing with you later.

Good night my friend :)

They had no idea humans could be so uncompassionate towards one another and couldn't comprehend it until they actually rolled up to camp.
Such little imagination.

Any atrocities that occured during reconstruction are NOT Lincoln's fault . . .

I whole-heartedly agree with you. They were Grant's and Hayes' faults. Grant for not caring, and Hayes for ending Reconstruction.

The Polish people got the Jews houses. Wouldn't you be happy?

Proof please?

It's called the McCollum memo.

Link?

Then why weren't the carriers with the rest of the fleet?

The Enterprise was a day late in arriving back at Pearl because of Bad Weather. The other carriers were doing delivery runs of airplanes or refits in San Diego.

Did you read the thread?

Yes, but I didn't wish to continue the topic on the current page. I wished to comment on the orignal post and some other posts on the first page. I wasn't replying to recent posts.

Such little imagination.

For the time? Not really. Hitler brought a whole new spin to the word of Atrocity. No one thought any human was capable of such cruelty. Not even the Armanian genocide by the Ottoman Empire was as bad as what Hitler did and that's saying something.

Yes, but I didn't wish to continue the topic on the current page. I wished to comment on the orignal post and some other posts on the first page. I wasn't replying to recent posts.

In other words, you didn't read it. Its cool. I addressed most of those points throughout this thread.

Proof please?
Look it up yourself.
Link?
You're lucky I have this one bookmarked.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/McCollum/index.html
The Enterprise was a day late in arriving back at Pearl because of Bad Weather. The other carriers were doing delivery runs of airplanes or refits in San Diego.
Of course, safe and sound in San Diego right when the Japanese atacked. I'm sure that wasn't planned at all.

First off, it is no big secret (to anyone who has taking anything higher than a fifth grade US history class) that Lincoln's first goal was to preserve the union and freeing the slaves was a secondary priority, which was a major cause to his waiting till after Gettysburg to announce freeing the slaves in all future territories aquired by the US. Meaning once the South was defeated slavery in those states would end but he could do nothing about the states still in the Union who still had legalized slavery.

And the Constitution does not protect the right of states to secede, it protects the rights of the people to overthrow the government if they feel that the government is no longer serving the needs of the people. This doesn't mean seceding from the Union, it means forcing the current government out of office through voting or force of arms. Very few soldiers in the Civil War were fighting for slavery, that was an issue of secondary priority, the norhterners were fighting to protect the Union and the southerners were fighting because their loyalties were to their state first, nation second. Very few men in the southern army had slaves, those who could afford slaves could afford to pay their way out of service (I believe it was $500) and remain at home while the poor, white farmers were sent to do their work.

The true issue of the Civil War was States rights vs. the rights of the Federal government. Obviously the Federal government won that war, rightfully so, 50 States working together can accomplish far more than 50 States out for themselves.

As for Lincoln being the worst President, I disagree, he led our nation through the most dangerous time in our nation's history and his plan for the South after the war would likely be far different than what happened, unfortunately a certain John Wilkes Booth ensured that the South would spend the next 50 years trying to rebuild.

In other words, you didn't read it. Its cool. I addressed most of those points throughout this thread.

Whoops, there goes my stupidity showing again. Maybe I just shouldn't reply to 25-page threads, as what I have to say has probably been said already . . .

Look it up yourself.

Burden of proof is on you

You're lucky I have this one bookmarked.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/McCollum/index.html

I'll call this suspect and very circumstancial at best.

Of course, safe and sound in San Diego right when the Japanese atacked. I'm sure that wasn't planned at all.

:rolleyes: I'm sure I can find the orders for the Saratoga, Enterprise, Yorktown and Lexington somewhere.

Whoops, there goes my stupidity showing again. Maybe I just shouldn't reply to 25-page threads, as what I have to say has probably been said already . . .

It would save you troubles if ya do read them before posting :D

Don't worry about Pioneer :)

Well ladies and gents, its been a slive but I have to be up in 5hrs and 45 minutes so goodnight.

Look it up yourself.

You're lucky I have this one bookmarked.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/McCollum/index.html

Of course, safe and sound in San Diego right when the Japanese atacked. I'm sure that wasn't planned at all.


See, the thing is though that crushing the Japanese fleet while it is in the act of attacking Pearl Harbor accomplishes the same thing as letting them kill thousands of American servicemen. It brings America into the war and if we destroy two, three or four of their carriers in the process we are in an even better position to win quickly, with fewer casualties. If the Navy really knew that the Japanese Imperial Navy was about to attack they would have sent subs out to attack the fleet as it headed back towards Japan, since they would have known the route they were taking after all.

Yes the Poles did get Jewish homes and yes they wanted a change in government not to be conquered. Poles have a long and proud history of surviving (their culture and society) under the worst conditions (including nonexistence for a long period). The Poles were also happy to get the communists because the German were horrible to them. and we all know what happend with communism. Furthermore when WWII ended they were very happy with the border. Oh and if they were so happy why did they fight (more so then France).

Although everyone seems to hate Ulyses S Grant, keep in mind he sent the military into South Carolina to destroy the KKK there. One of the reasons he gave up on reconstruction later in his term is because of an economic recession, which reduced Northerners' sympathies for Southern blacks as they become more concerned with their own economic fortunes.

Most historians who have researched the Abraham Lincoln Presidency do call him one of the best presidents of all time. I see that you are very ignorant of history.

So? If most historians said shit could be made into gold, would it make it so?

Note: I'm not saying they're right or wrong, just that their opinions aren't necessarily facts.

So? If most historians said shit could be made into gold, would it make it so?

Note: I'm not saying they're right or wrong, just that their opinions aren't necessarily facts.

But Historians tend to review far more facts than you or I and in far greater detail and thus their opinion about something of this magnitude is far more reliable than you or I.

Another example of this, JFK, as historians spend more and more time reviewing the information they have are starting to lessen their opinions on him more and more. Partially because he was on crack and an adulterer. (Ok, can't blame him for the heroine and stuff if a doctor was injecting him with it.)

Another example of this, JFK, as historians spend more and more time reviewing the information they have are starting to lessen their opinions on him more and more. Partially because he was on crack and an adulterer. (Ok, can't blame him for the heroine and stuff if a doctor was injecting him with it.)

I am no fan of JFK, but you are...well...wrong. He couldn't have possibly been on crack. It wasn't even invented yet. He may have used cocaine, I don't know. But crack as a substance didn't exist yet.

And what's this about him and heroic women?

(I am just wondering about the "heroine". If you mean heroin, the drug, well that is a completely different type of drug from crack and cocaine, which are at least related substances.)

JKF suffered from cronic back pains and one of the many things is doctor was giving him for the pain would be several narcotics, I generally use crack as a generic term to refer to drugs, like heroine. But like I said, it wasn't his fault, JFK was plagued by absolutely terrible medical care, as almost all president's in the past have been. McKinley and Lincoln were both likely killed by their doctors constant poking and prodding as much by the bullet.

You gotta understand a few things, though, folks.

I'm not saying that Lincoln was our worst President, but, as northeastern Liberal and a student of history, I can tell you that he did wonderful things like

* Posting the army to "guard" the polling places during his second-term election

* Setting loose Picket's March, the first use of an army to destroy strictly civilian targets since Charlemaigne


And I haven't even read any of those books listed on the first page of this thread! It's PAINFULLY OBVIOUS to ANYONE with even a PERFUNCTORY knowledge of history that Lincoln wasn't the wonderful man that the arrogant writers of US History make him out to be.

That doesn't necessarily make him the worst. For example, there's McKinley...

* Started a war of agression against Spain based on false claims

* Dealt with a band of armed thugs, in complete disregard of a rightful government, in annexing Hawaii

* "Deregulated" the financial industry so badly that it set the stage for the Great Depression


There were others. Truman was in bed with the mafia before he was elected to his first term in the Senate. Grant was such a drunk that he was both ineffective in office and unable to prevent his administration from being riddled with scandal. Goerge Washington was probably a homosexual--but at least he wasn't the posterboy for Stuck Up that Hancock was--which is probably why they don't even count Hancock as a President, even though he ran the country for several years. If Hancock was MY President, I wouldn't want to advertise it, either.


It doesn't take a rebel wannabe to know that these guys weren't the demigods that they're too often made out to be.

Who's the worst of the bunch? Sorry, but I'm not going to answer that question on the grounds that it may incriminate me. :) :) :)

JKF suffered from cronic back pains and one of the many things is doctor was giving him for the pain would be several narcotics, I generally use crack as a generic term to refer to drugs, like heroine. But like I said, it wasn't his fault, JFK was plagued by absolutely terrible medical care, as almost all president's in the past have been. McKinley and Lincoln were both likely killed by their doctors constant poking and prodding as much by the bullet.

I apologize if my info is a little off, I have never ingested any sort of narcotics and would hardly consider myself an expert on the subject, all I know is that at work I see the result of these drugs and know that I really don't want to end up liek that.

JKF suffered from cronic back pains and one of the many things is doctor was giving him for the pain would be several narcotics, I generally use crack as a generic term to refer to drugs, like heroine. But like I said, it wasn't his fault, JFK was plagued by absolutely terrible medical care, as almost all president's in the past have been. McKinley and Lincoln were both likely killed by their doctors constant poking and prodding as much by the bullet.

Well, narcotics is a completely different animal. You implied that he was on the drug of choice for the dregs of society. You know, for people that meth is too good for. I guess you don't know. You seem to be (no offense) drug illiterate.


And "heroine" is a female hero! The drug is heroin.

Well, narcotics is a completely different animal. You implied that he was on the drug of choice for the dregs of society. You know, for people that meth is too good for. I guess you don't know. You seem to be (no offense) drug illiterate.


And "heroine" is a female hero! The drug is heroin.

No offense taken, and hey, it is 1:30 in the morning, I have been trying to get my sleeping habits back on track so this is late for me. The ole noggin aint all it used to be, say 12 hours ago.

As I said before, all I know about drugs is that they have so few benefits that the government has (rightfully so) made them illegal. Sure heroin might cause the pounds to just fall off, but is it really worth dropping down to the intellectual level of a third grader to lose weight faster than you would with diet and exercise? I can see and understand how pot can be useful in treating back pain (I know someone who is doing that, works better than Vicodin with fewer harsh side effects, irony.) but that doesn't mean I think it should be legal for anyone to use.

I also think smoking should be banned in general but I don't see that happening any time soon.

But you atleast get my point right? JFK's doctor was shooting him up with so much stuff that it is a miracle he could sit still for more than five minutes, right? And I am not blaming JFK for that, just saying it was a factor.

JKF suffered from cronic back pains and one of the many things is doctor was giving him for the pain would be several narcotics, I generally use crack as a generic term to refer to drugs, like heroine. But like I said, it wasn't his fault, JFK was plagued by absolutely terrible medical care, as almost all president's in the past have been. McKinley and Lincoln were both likely killed by their doctors constant poking and prodding as much by the bullet.

I apologize if my info is a little off, I have never ingested any sort of narcotics and would hardly consider myself an expert on the subject, all I know is that at work I see the result of these drugs and know that I really don't want to end up liek that.


No. Lincooln was shot in the back of the head, if im not mistaken, he died almost instantly.

So? If most historians said shit could be made into gold, would it make it so?

Given the right circumstances....

Note: I'm not saying they're right or wrong, just that their opinions aren't necessarily facts.

Its called research.

Dastardly Stench']You gotta understand a few things, though, folks.

I'm not saying that Lincoln was our worst President, but, as northeastern Liberal and a student of history, I can tell you that he did wonderful things like

The bolded makes me suspect.

* Posting the army to "guard" the polling places during his second-term election

And what do you think his reason for that is?

* Setting loose Picket's March, the first use of an army to destroy strictly civilian targets since Charlemaigne

It was SHERMAN'S March to the Sea. So much for those history classes.

And I haven't even read any of those books listed on the first page of this thread! It's PAINFULLY OBVIOUS to ANYONE with even a PERFUNCTORY knowledge of history that Lincoln wasn't the wonderful man that the arrogant writers of US History make him out to be.

As a student majoring in History AND taking a Civil War class WHILE having studied it in the past, I would have to call your B.S.

That doesn't necessarily make him the worst. For example, there's McKinley...

* Started a war of agression against Spain based on false claims

This is accurate. Hindsight is 20/20 afterall.

* Dealt with a band of armed thugs, in complete disregard of a rightful government, in annexing Hawaii

Somewhat accurate.

* "Deregulated" the financial industry so badly that it set the stage for the Great Depression

WRONG! MOST definitely wrong.

There were others. Truman was in bed with the mafia before he was elected to his first term in the Senate.

I''m going to have to ask for proof

Grant was such a drunk that he was both ineffective in office and unable to prevent his administration from being riddled with scandal.

I'll grant you the scandles but just because he was a heavy drinker does not necessarily make one a drunk. Do you know why he was a heavy drinker?

Goerge Washington was probably a homosexual--but at least he wasn't the posterboy for Stuck Up that Hancock was--which is probably why they don't even count Hancock as a President, even though he ran the country for several years. If Hancock was MY President, I wouldn't want to advertise it, either.

I'm going to have to ask what you base the bolded assertion on. What is your beef with Hancock?

It doesn't take a rebel wannabe to know that these guys weren't the demigods that they're too often made out to be.

And no one is making them out to be demigods.

Who's the worst of the bunch? Sorry, but I'm not going to answer that question on the grounds that it may incriminate me. :) :) :)

Sure hide behind the 5th with your mostly inaccurate and full of speculation post.

Too close to the truth for you? As I have said before, any man or woman who volunteers to be a member of a standing army is a traitor to the people. They are the reason we don't have gay marriage in this country and that a person isn't free to enjoy what substances they wish in the privacy of their own home. They are the agents of oppression.

I wasn't aware the standing army was the reason for these measures. Do tell, do tell. I didn't realize that when I became an activist for LGBT rights and equality, I was at the same time an agent of oppression. I guess I missed all of those standing army/no gay marriage laws.

I can't find a single statute that says "and because we have a standing army, there must be no pot-smoking in the US." Hmmm... I must have missed all of the army/no pot bills. Please post your evidence, friend.

See, I was under the mistaken belief that ultra-conservatives and corporate bullying was responsible for disallowing drug use. I must have been mistaken when I figured it was all of the "gays are evil" folks that attack sexuality and sexual identity rights.

But, hey, I'm here to be enlightened. I'll await what must be mountains of evidence to support your claims.

Dastardly Stench']And I haven't even read any of those books listed on the first page of this thread! It's PAINFULLY OBVIOUS to ANYONE with even a PERFUNCTORY knowledge of history that Lincoln wasn't the wonderful man that the arrogant writers of US History make him out to be.
Style Over Substance argument.

That doesn't necessarily make him the worst. For example, there's McKinley...

* Started a war of agression against Spain based on false claims
This was more the fault of the press than anyone else.
http://www.humboldt.edu/~jcb10/spanwar.shtml

* "Deregulated" the financial industry so badly that it set the stage for the Great Depression

Actually, the creation of the Fed set the US up for the Great Depression. (Yet anouther part of the legacy of Woodrow "miserable failure" Wilson.)