NationStates Jolt Archive

Im very wired on lotsa espresso.. I need to keep busy or imma snap, so i'll watch you guys talk. If this thread actually takes off..

Heres the question: Was there ever a president worse than Bushy? Why was that person worse? Discuss..

Not while i've been alive.

Not while i've been alive.
No no no! In the whole history of the USA I meant..

Im very wired on lotsa espresso.. I need to keep busy or imma snap, so i'll watch you guys talk. If this thread actually takes off..

Heres the question: Was there ever a president worse than Bushy? Why was that person worse? Discuss..
yeah--cheney

Im very wired on lotsa espresso.. I need to keep busy or imma snap, so i'll watch you guys talk. If this thread actually takes off..

Heres the question: Was there ever a president worse than Bushy? Why was that person worse? Discuss..

Not many, but a few come to mind.

Carter- his utter wimpyness is what made it ok for the U.S. to overcompensate by bombing the shit out of whoever fucks with us.

FDR- singlehandedly turned the country into a welfare state.

Lincoln- for tearing the constitution to threads, burning it, and pissing on its ashes. And before you say anything, NO, he did NOT free the slaves in the United States of America.

I think the question should be; is there anyone better than Bush, the answer is no one.

I've always wanted to throttle Andrew Jackson...

No no no! In the whole history of the USA I meant..
I'm in the unfortunate position of not being able to fairly argue anyone's merits before i was alive, for some reasons that Brians Room made me think on a different thread.

I can't agree that Carter was worse. He wasn't. He wasn't much of a president, but he was a considerably better president than Bush/Cheney (good answer, Romulus Os).

As for Lincoln, he obviously did a few things wrong. But Bush kicks his arse in the arsehole department.

As for FDR ... i notice that a lot of people think that their taxes shouldn't come back to them unless they're rich.

I think the question should be; is there anyone better than Bush, the answer is no one.
:eek: What about the Lord Jesus Christ, our Saviour!

Bush is the worst president ever, with the exception of all the rest.

I think the question should be; is there anyone better than Bush, the answer is no one.
Not true, there's YOU!
Here's a great example of your patriotism and fortitude!

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10611153&postcount=91

Proud, PROUD to be an american! :D

:eek: What about the Lord Jesus Christ, our Saviour!
Or his NS representative, JesusSaves?

Or his NS representative, JesusSaves?
See? There can be no better!

As for Lincoln, he obviously did a few things wrong. But Bush kicks his arse in the arsehole department.

As for FDR ... i notice that a lot of people think that their taxes shouldn't come back to them unless they're rich.

Bush never caused the death of 600,000 Americans. Lincoln is the only president that can claim that bodycount.

I am not rich. And I want my damn money back.

See? There can be no better!
:eek: :eek: :eek:

Bush never caused the death of 600,000 Americans. Lincoln is the only president that can claim that bodycount.

I am not rich. And I want my damn money back.

Yep, Lincoln is the only person responsible for the Civil War. Yep, your a dumbass.

thanks Straughn--I may not always be right but I do know how to fight

:eek: What about the Lord Jesus Christ, our Saviour!
Im an atheist

Bush never caused the death of 600,000 Americans. Lincoln is the only president that can claim that bodycount.I'll point out that the union took a swing for the better from that one. The people helping the current son of a bitch are quite happy with the idea of World War III happening with them, and don't try and tell me they're not shooting for it.
You are right about the deaths, but the deaths *ALONE* do not encompass all of an actual functioning presidency. I mean no slant to those who died, i mean to make a point.

I am not rich. And I want my damn money back.Did you get a bum's rush on the current president, you mean to say? No fear, you can invest in Katherine Harris ... buying her got you this far. Just finish the job and invest in her "volumptuous" campaign!

I think the question should be; is there anyone better than Bush, the answer is no one.

What the hell is the matter with you, Venezcuba?

Personally, I think the only world leader that was worse that GWB has to be...

Chaka of the Zulus, only because he was far too ignorant of what whould happen to his people once he sold them out to the English.

See? There can be no better!
Did you just win the thread, on the first page? :eek:

I am not rich. And I want my damn money back.
Like you never got anything in return for what you put in. Please. :rolleyes:

Yep, Lincoln is the only person responsible for the Civil War. Yep, your a dumbass.

When someone is singlehandedly responsible for turning a states right's issue/domestic dispute into a war, I can logically blame them for it. There is a reason the much erroneously reviled president before him didn't do anything- he correctly said that the constitution did not give him authority too. Lincoln violated the constitution by contramanding that decision. So yes, he can be beamed for starting it.

Before you call a person with a graduate degree in history a dumbass in reference to a history related topic, you should probably just shut the hell up.

Im an atheist
To the eternal flames of Hell with you! :eek:

Did you just win the thread, on the first page? :eek:
Yes. And I want a cookie now. No. A whole cookie factory actually.

Did you get a bum's rush on the current president, you mean to say? No fear, you can invest in Katherine Harris ... buying her got you this far. Just finish the job and invest in her "volumptuous" campaign!

If this means she's getting a boob job, and I can stare at it all day...well, I might just pay taxes for that. If I can play with them then she'll even get my vote.

Before you call a person with a graduate degree in history a dumbass in reference to a history related topic, you should probably just shut the hell up.
Name&number dropping?
Post it or something.
All knave no chief here.

If this means she's getting a boob job, and I can stare at it all day...well, I might just pay taxes for that. If I can play with them then she'll even get my vote.
Well, i'm glad you qualified your priorities. A man's man!
Seriously though, have you caught the "rodeo" footage? The snug sorbet-coloured affair?
I think it's already been done.

When someone is singlehandedly responsible for turning a states right's issue/domestic dispute into a war, I can logically blame them for it. There is a reason the much erroneously reviled president before him didn't do anything- he correctly said that the constitution did not give him authority too. Lincoln violated the constitution by contramanding that decision. So yes, he can be beamed for starting it.

Before you call a person with a graduate degree in history a dumbass in reference to a history related topic, you should probably just shut the hell up.

If you do have a degree in history then you should know that a Civil War in America was bound to happen, the seeds of it had been planted even before the United States of America existed.

So maybe you should go get a refund for that degree.

Before you call a person with a graduate degree in history a dumbass in reference to a history related topic, you should probably just shut the hell up.


Wow- I thought you were like 18. Shows what I know. I really should have my assumption radar tuned up.

Yes. And I want a cookie now. No. A whole cookie factory actually.
Uhm ... i've got some Cookie Crisp crumbs in my couch ... i could collect them into, uhm, perhaps some rice crispie squares?

Uhm ... i've got some Cookie Crisp crumbs in my couch ... i could collect them into, uhm, perhaps some rice crispie squares?
Oh why don't you just join UN Abassodorship :p

I think all this whineing about the aritcle only goes to prove its point. ;)

If CONservatives would only drop the "under seige" mentality they might get some traction here. As it stands, the only people complaining are the ones who want to bitch about where the study was conducted.

Waahhhh! Waaahhh! People don't wike my pwezident!!

EDIT: Oh well, while this goes for this thread as well, this post was meant for somewhere else...

Oh why don't you just join UN Abassodorship :p
I don't have *his* credentials :(

I don't have *his* credentials :(
what credentials, I just speak my mind

I don't have *his* credentials :(
"Credentials" you mean :p

Name&number dropping?
Post it or something.
All knave no chief here.

Go back through my thousand or so posts and you'll see the same thing. I have a master's degree in history. My undergrad minor's were philosophy and anthropology. Do I expect you to beleive me? No, and I don't care. What, if I post my name and degree date you'll suddenly believe me? I could claim to be the Prince of Sheeba and you'll find a reference to his credentials, that doesn't make me him. If it'll really make you happy I can t-gram you something.

But when some other jerk off calls me a dumbass on something related to my field, I feel obliged to mention that I am not an uneducated "dumbass", but a fairly intelligent person who does not deserve to be insulted because I have an informed opinion.

Wow- I thought you were like 18. Shows what I know. I really should have my assumption radar tuned up.

This is like the third time you have said that peechie. I am 29, you're 30 or 31, I think. Remember? We had this discussion after the "Sally" incident.

This is like the third time you have said that peechie. I am 29, you're 30 or 31, I think. Remember? We had this discussion after the "Sally" incident.


Right,right you are...It's all coming back to me now. Apologies:) . I hope I'm not getting senile at such an early age.

Go back through my thousand or so posts and you'll see the same thing. I have a master's degree in history. My undergrad minor's were philosophy and anthropology. Do I expect you to beleive me? No, and I don't care. What, if I post my name and degree date you'll suddenly believe me? I could claim to be the Prince of Sheeba and you'll find a reference to his credentials, that doesn't make me him. If it'll really make you happy I can t-gram you something. It's just basically irrelevant to make a discernment of supposed authority to anyone here. It truly is. I don't give a sh*t, truly. I don't expect *ANYONE* to treat me as an authority as anything, so i just say "here's the link/source material" and argue as you will with it. Given there's times i've ALREADY posted the source material and i am loathe to repost and all that, i'll ref people back to my posting history. It's not about believing you, it's that no one really has any reason to believe anyone in just a conversational reference. If you invoke authority otherwise, it helps to show as much. *shrug*
Perhaps you do have it some place, but it's not really my point. If you want, feel free to TG me about it, that's fair. *nods*

But when some other jerk off calls me a dumbass on something related to my field, I feel obliged to mention that I am not an uneducated "dumbass", but a fairly intelligent person who does not deserve to be insulted because I have an informed opinion.
That's fair. There's the proof-in-the-pudding catchall.

"Credentials" you mean :p
Oh yeah? What about sucking a golfball through a crazy straw? Doesn't that count for something? :eek:

Oh yeah? What about sucking a golfball through a crazy straw? Doesn't that count for something? :eek:
Hmmm...well it might get you into Limbo, but Hell would take a little more than that. Did you swallow the golf ball? :eek:

When someone is singlehandedly responsible for turning a states right's issue/domestic dispute into a war, I can logically blame them for it. There is a reason the much erroneously reviled president before him didn't do anything- he correctly said that the constitution did not give him authority too. Lincoln violated the constitution by contramanding that decision. So yes, he can be beamed for starting it.

Contramanding what decision? What action did Lincoln take that made the South secede and then attack U.S. forts? Other than just get elected.

Oh yeah? What about sucking a golfball through a crazy straw? Doesn't that count for something? :eek:


No, no it doesnt. Wish I'd have known that before I added it to my college entrance application.

Hmmm...well it might get you into Limbo, but Hell would take a little more than that. Did you swallow the golf ball? :eek:
Nobody swallows Lunatic Golfballs except ... well, you-know-who! ;)

Nobody swallows Lunatic Golfballs except ... well, you-know-who! ;)
I dare not say it! :eek:

No, no it doesnt. Wish I'd have known that before I added it to my college entrance application.
Ya know, Cutty Sarkhaan really should get on top of that "anecdote" thread he mentioned earlier ... ;)

I dare not say it! :eek:
The Unmentionable?!?

The Unmentionable?!?
The Unthinkable even!

Ya know, Cutty Sarkhaan really should get on top of that "anecdote" thread he mentioned earlier ... ;)


He's been too busy with that "whadda ya sound like" thread. Which by the way, I have been putting much thought into "how can I get Straughn to record something for us?"


I am prepared to send you several replacement boxes of Cookie Crisp.....;)

He's been too busy with that "whadda ya sound like" thread. Which by the way, I have been putting much thought into "how can I get Straughn to record something for us?"


I am prepared to send you several replacement boxes of Cookie Crisp.....;)
My dad wants the same thing, since we were planning on recording our Arctic Winter Games shows. But there were *just enough* mitigating circumstances :(

Ah well, i'm such a procrastinator, i didn't get my first birthmark until i was eight years old.

My dad wants the same thing, since we were planning on recording our Arctic Winter Games shows. But there were *just enough* mitigating circumstances :(

Ah well, i'm such a procrastinator, i didn't get my first birthmark until i was eight years old.

lol...


Well if you ever feel like moseying on over to the recording thread, the offer still stands. You need to check out the Sarkanator's growl (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10608516&postcount=688)

oh and on topic, yes my 3rd grade teacher was far worse than Bush. Mrs Barret:mad:

Im very wired on lotsa espresso.. I need to keep busy or imma snap, so i'll watch you guys talk. If this thread actually takes off..

Heres the question: Was there ever a president worse than Bushy? Why was that person worse? Discuss..

the clowns. They are everywhere, and they're all out to get you. Who knows what kind of murderous thought hide behind the excess of creepy make up? *shudders*

the clowns. They are everywhere, and they're all out to get you. Who knows what kind of murderous thought hide behind the excess of creepy make up? *shudders*
*twitches*

lol...


Well if you ever feel like moseying on over to the recording thread, the offer still stands. You need to check out the Sarkanator's growl (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10608516&postcount=688)

oh and on topic, yes my 3rd grade teacher was far worse than Bush. Mrs Barret:mad:
Thank you. That's very graceful, not that i should expect any less from you :)
I have pondered doing that. Now i'm gonna have to own up to it, it would appear.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AllCoolNamesAreTaken
When someone is singlehandedly responsible for turning a states right's issue/domestic dispute into a war, I can logically blame them for it. There is a reason the much erroneously reviled president before him didn't do anything- he correctly said that the constitution did not give him authority too. Lincoln violated the constitution by contramanding that decision. So yes, he can be beamed for starting it.

Contramanding what decision? What action did Lincoln take that made the South secede and then attack U.S. forts? Other than just get elected.
__________________
.
.
.


Any chance of a response on this?

If you do have a degree in history then you should know that a Civil War in America was bound to happen, the seeds of it had been planted even before the United States of America existed.

So maybe you should go get a refund for that degree.

No thanks. I'll keep my mostly worthless but expensive piece of paper. It looks good on the wall above my toilet. It reminds me how much money I pissed away on something I don't use.

The civil war was not bound to happen. If you refer to the inevitable demise of slavery, (which contributed to but was not the main issue in the war) some provisions had been installed into the constitution to begin phasing it out. Also, the economics of slavery were so crummy that even had the Confederacy remained an independant country it would have disappeared in a few decades. This is moot, because slavery was not the issue, as shown in Lincoln's own words in a letter to Horace Greeley, editor of the New York Tribune, “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that.”

If, instead, you refer to the "states rights" conflict, it could have been solved in many other ways, all preferable to war. Yes, one such way would have enabled states to leave the U.S. Something I think is much preferable to forcing them to stay with the price tag of half a million lives.

Contramanding what decision? What action did Lincoln take that made the South secede and then attack U.S. forts? Other than just get elected.

*Sigh*

South Carolina seceeded from the union while James Buchanan was still president. He said that there was no constitutional basis for using force to preserve the union, so he could not act. According to his correct interpretation of the constitution, South Carolina could leave, and there wasn't a damn thing he could do about it. Then Lincoln was elected. After which, ten other states left the union, and formed the confederacy. Lincoln then threatened force to "preserve the union". He sent troops to enforce that threat, and to seize "government" property from the traitors, i.e. he sent troops to take the forts and fortified positions within the south. It was then that cadets at The Citadel fired the first shots of the Civil War, on Northern troops trying to seize a fort the cadets were manning.

Any chance of a response on this?

See above post. Sorry, I had to use the facilities.

South Carolina seceeded from the union while James Buchanan was still president. He said that there was no constitutional basis for using force to preserve the union, so he could not act. According to his correct interpretation of the constitution, South Carolina could leave, and there wasn't a damn thing he could do about it. Then Lincoln was elected. After which, ten other states left the union, and formed the confederacy. Lincoln then threatened force to "preserve the union". He sent troops to enforce that threat, and to seize "government" property from the traitors, i.e. he sent troops to take the forts and fortified positions within the south. It was then that cadets at The Citadel fired the first shots of the Civil War, on Northern troops trying to seize a fort the cadets were manning.

I see - it really sounded earlier that you were accusing Lincoln of taking an action that caused the South to secede. You seem to be an advocate of secession and hold Lincoln guilty for trying to hold the union together. It's crystal clear, now.

I see - it really sounded earlier that you were accusing Lincoln of taking an action that caused the South to secede. You seem to be an advocate of secession and hold Lincoln guilty for trying to hold the union together. It's crystal clear, now.

I am an advocate of state's rights. According to the constitution, states have that right. Or more correctly, the federal government doesn't have the right to do anything if a state should choose to seceed. I do not however, have a rebel flag (more correctly a Confederate Navy Jack), advocte slavery, racism, "Southern pride", a "Christian nation", or any other such nonsense. But I believe Lincoln's choice to "hold the union together" using violence was reprehensible.

The States and Ireland left the UK. The Phillipines left the U.S. Taiwan left China. (sort of, anyways) etc, etc. Countries shifting political borders or deciding to separate has happened countless times through history. Often violently. Sometimes not. And I say violently holding someone to a political structure they want to leave is always wrong. Try reading John Locke. You know, the major inspiration for the Declaration of Independence?

*twitches*
Okay, one of the *few* times i'm modestly honest about my IRL personality (and i probably owe this one to Lunatic "Flesh Skep" Goofballs ...)
I do have to deal with a mild affliction of caulrophobia. :(
I don't know why, even if i do rationalize it. I still react.

The Unthinkable even!
Here's something to unthink ...
Not only is there the LLG,
there's LLG: The Sequel on the way!!!! :eek:

Here's something to unthink ...
Not only is there the LLG,
there's LLG: The Sequel on the way!!!! :eek:
:eek:

The civil war was not bound to happen. If you refer to the inevitable demise of slavery, (which contributed to but was not the main issue in the war) some provisions had been installed into the constitution to begin phasing it out. Also, the economics of slavery were so crummy that even had the Confederacy remained an independant country it would have disappeared in a few decades.

Like you, I am an ardent state's rightist, but I have to disagree with you. Despite being generally wrong on several other points, the previous poster was correct. Unfortunately, the seeds of the War for Southern Independence were sown back during the original Constitutional Convention. It all revolved around what people felt was the primary building block of the Union - were the several states supreme, or was the national government?

That question was never fully resolved until the Civil War. Slavery was just one of the primary issues where you had the desires of certain states at odds with the desires of others.

While Lincoln was traveling the circuit back in Illinois, John C. Calhoun was in the Senate proclaiming the right of states to nullification and secession, and Andrew Jackson was threatening to string him up and march the Regular Army in South Carolina to do it.

Until the question of which was supreme - the states or the Federal government - was resolved, there was always going to be tension. It took a war to answer that question.

There's a reason we refer to the United States in the singular form - before the war, it was plural.

This is moot, because slavery was not the issue, as shown in Lincoln's own words in a letter to Horace Greeley, editor of the New York Tribune, “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that.”

You've got to take into account the fact that Lincoln was one of the most brilliant political minds in history. He believed in abolition, but he also believed in the Union, and he was more than willing to throw everything else under the bus to achieve his aim of saving the Union, and that included the Constitution itself.

His statement to Greeley here was written for public consumption, and it was designed specifically to counter the impression in the Southern states that he was going to free the slaves - in fact, he didn't believe he had that authority (which he didn't, frankly) under the Constitution even if he wanted to. Dredd Scott was still the law of the land. So I don't believe that this is an accurate representation of his true opinion. He desired to free the slaves, but he would do nothing that jeopardized the Union itself.

He was also the king of killing more than one bird with a single stone, and that's what he did with the Emancipation Proclamation.

If, instead, you refer to the "states rights" conflict, it could have been solved in many other ways, all preferable to war. Yes, one such way would have enabled states to leave the U.S. Something I think is much preferable to forcing them to stay with the price tag of half a million lives.

Sadly, I believe the blame for those lives lies with the Confederacy. I say sadly because I think they were right in terms of secession, and also because that's where I'm from. We refused to listen to reason and to find a way of working with the Northerners. When Beauregard fired on Sumter, it wasn't because of military necessity - it was because that was what we wanted. And we got what we asked for.

South Carolina seceeded from the union while James Buchanan was still president. He said that there was no constitutional basis for using force to preserve the union, so he could not act. According to his correct interpretation of the constitution, South Carolina could leave, and there wasn't a damn thing he could do about it. Then Lincoln was elected. After which, ten other states left the union, and formed the confederacy.

Not so fast. Lincoln had already been elected when South Carolina seceded. He simply hadn't been inaugurated yet. Breckenridge's loss to Lincoln precipitated the whole thing. Had Breckenridge won, it's more likely than not that South Carolina would have stuck around.

After South Carolina seceded, 7 other states left the Union as well. That was when Jefferson Davis was elected as provisional President and the Confederacy was formed. It wasn't until after Lincoln called for 75,000 troops to put down the rebellion that Virginia, North Carolina, Tennesee and Arkansas seceded. Missouri and Kentucky both passed secession ordinances as well, but had dueling legislatures, and were both under nominal Union control for most of the war, so they aren't typically viewed as legitimate Confederate states, even though they did have representatives in the Confederate Congress.

Lincoln then threatened force to "preserve the union". He sent troops to enforce that threat, and to seize "government" property from the traitors, i.e. he sent troops to take the forts and fortified positions within the south. It was then that cadets at The Citadel fired the first shots of the Civil War, on Northern troops trying to seize a fort the cadets were manning.

Frankly, Lincoln was right in regards to the "government property" argument. Those forts were under control of the Federal Department of War, and should have been under US control.

But in any event, I don't believe you can blame Lincoln for what happened. I blame Buchanan because there were steps he could have taken that would have at least calmed the sectional rivalries, but he failed to act. I also believe that he was in cahoots with Chief Justice Taney in regards to the Dredd Scott decision, and that was a dispicable miscarriage of justice, no matter whose side you are on. He was far worse than Bush.

Other Presidents that were far worse than Bush include:

Martin Van Buren - Wouldn't have been elected if he wasn't so closely identified with Anderw Jackson, although the two were polar opposites. Sat back and did nothing during one of the worst depressions of the 19th century.

John Tyler - If you want to blame anyone for the sectionionalism that led to the Civil War, you can blame Tyler. Elected on the Whig ticket with William Henry Harrison, he became President when Harrison died. He then spent the rest of his presidency vetoing everything the Whigs passed in Congress to try and prove he wasn't a "rubber stamp." He was so good at it, they threw him out of the party and gave the nomination to Henry Clay, who lost to James Polk.

U.S. Grant - if you believe the Bush administration is corrupt, go read about Grant's for a while. He turned nepotism into high art.

Rutherford B. Hayes - Frequently accused of stealing the 1876 election, when the electoral college was tied, he cut a deal with the southern Democrats in the House that he would remove federal troops from the south and end reconstruction if they voted for him. They did, and he did, the South plunged into racism and Jim Crow, and he never lived it down.

Herbert Hoover - Take the wishy-washy "I don't have the authority" line from Buchanan, throw in Van Buren's economic sense and you've got Hoover. I'm no New Dealer, but he could have done SOMETHING.

Warren G. Harding - His biggest claim to fame was that he died in office.

Bush isn't even close to being the worst President we've had.

Ahh, a debate worth getting in to! Between the two of us, how many alternate phrases for the U.S. Civil War can we come up with? :p

Like you, I am an ardent state's rightist, but I have to disagree with you. Despite being generally wrong on several other points, the previous poster was correct. Unfortunately, the seeds of the War for Southern Independence were sown back during the original Constitutional Convention. It all revolved around what people felt was the primary building block of the Union - were the several states supreme, or was the national government?

That question was never fully resolved until the Civil War. Slavery was just one of the primary issues where you had the desires of certain states at odds with the desires of others.

I concede that it was a hotbed issue, and one that was not resolved until The War Between The States. However, I disagree that war was inevitable. Had Linclon not acted with force, the issue would have been decided without bloodshed. Of course, there would be a lot fewer states today, and most likely a vastly different world. I do not see "preserving the union" as a valid argument, especially in a nation inspired by Locke.

You've got to take into account the fact that Lincoln was one of the most brilliant political minds in history. He believed in abolition, but he also believed in the Union, and he was more than willing to throw everything else under the bus to achieve his aim of saving the Union, and that included the Constitution itself.

His statement to Greeley here was written for public consumption, and it was designed specifically to counter the impression in the Southern states that he was going to free the slaves - in fact, he didn't believe he had that authority (which he didn't, frankly) under the Constitution even if he wanted to. Dredd Scott was still the law of the land. So I don't believe that this is an accurate representation of his true opinion. He desired to free the slaves, but he would do nothing that jeopardized the Union itself.

He was also the king of killing more than one bird with a single stone, and that's what he did with the Emancipation Proclamation.

Ahh, but the Emancipation Proclaimation didn't free all the slaves. Just the ones in the "rebelling" states. The few slave states who remained in the Union still had "legal slavery", although in reality that is just splitting hairs. And you are correct that Lincoln did not have authority to do so. He also didn't have authority to carve one state out of another, like he did with West Virginia. And he didn't have authority to wage war on the South. I list him as one of the worst presidents because he violated the constitution wholesale.

A few presidents I like did as well, but not to the same degree, and not for an oppressive reason either. Jefferson and the Louisiana Pourchase and Polk and the Dept of the Interior come to mind. Polk had to do something with all that new land, and Jefferson...well, he knew a good deal when he saw it, even though he didn't broker it.


Sadly, I believe the blame for those lives lies with the Confederacy. I say sadly because I think they were right in terms of secession, and also because that's where I'm from. We refused to listen to reason and to find a way of working with the Northerners. When Beauregard fired on Sumter, it wasn't because of military necessity - it was because that was what we wanted. And we got what we asked for.

I cannot see how the blame can lie with the Confederacy when war could have been averted had Lincoln not resorted to force. Letting the states go was an option, even though it was not a popular one. The south wanted independence, and was willing to fight to get it if they had to. Reminds me of another small group of states who wanted a country of their own 90 or so years earlier. Someone from the south should see The War of Northern Agression for what it was- The Failed War for Independence.

Frankly, Lincoln was right in regards to the "government property" argument. Those forts were under control of the Federal Department of War, and should have been under US control.

I see your point and counter with : The former Soviet states didn't hand over their military equipment to Russia (or all their nukes, for that matter), England didn't reclaim the arms left in the U.S. after the War of Independence, etc. If the Confederacy truly was a new nation, history tells us whatever "government" property the former government controlled, is transfered to the new government. Of course, history also tells us the former government is usually not too happy about that.

President Harding and President Coolidge weren't too spectacular.

Neither was Nixon.

Or Reagan.

Andrew Jackson was a mean, racist, genocidal son of a bitch, too.

Then there's Hayes.

Hmm...

and the President before Lincoln who did nothing about the civil war breaking out when the confederates fired on Fort Sumter...

It's really hard to compare though, since they were bad in such different ways sometimes.

I concede that it was a hotbed issue, and one that was not resolved until The War Between The States. However, I disagree that war was inevitable. Had Linclon not acted with force, the issue would have been decided without bloodshed. Of course, there would be a lot fewer states today, and most likely a vastly different world. I do not see "preserving the union" as a valid argument, especially in a nation inspired by Locke.

Lincoln did everything he could think of, up to and including proposing gradual compensated emancipation, and he was flatly rejected. He did not believe in secession, so simply allowing us to leave was not an option for him.

The thing you've got to remember is that for the most ardent Unionists, the Union was something sacred - and seeing it split by sectional rivalries was like seeing your arm cut off in front of you. They would do whatever it took to preserve the Union.

Ahh, but the Emancipation Proclaimation didn't free all the slaves. Just the ones in the "rebelling" states. The few slave states who remained in the Union still had "legal slavery", although in reality that is just splitting hairs.

That's my point. The Emancipation Proclaimation allowed him to kill two birds with one stone - he could soothe the ardent abolitionists in his own party by making a fairly empty gesture. At the same time, he put pressure on the South by playing on their worst possible nightmare, a slave insurrection. They would be compelled to use troops that could otherwise be fighting McClellan and Rosecrans to garrison duty as each Southern governor cried for troops to defend against the "threat" of an insurrection. Finally, he didn't have to worry about a Constitutional question, because freeing the slaves in the territory controlled by Union forces was within his prerogative as Commander-in-Chief. It was a brilliant political stroke, and it gave the North the moral high ground.

And you are correct that Lincoln did not have authority to do so. He also didn't have authority to carve one state out of another, like he did with West Virginia.

I still don't recognize that place as a legitimate state. :)

And he didn't have authority to wage war on the South. I list him as one of the worst presidents because he violated the constitution wholesale.

Had he lost the war, I'd agree with you. But he believed that his oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution granted him the ability to do whatever it took to keep the Union (he viewed the two as the same) together. He won, though, and he deserves credit for it.

He is, in my opinion, one of the most brilliant politicians of the modern age, and he rarely gets credit for that. Freeing the slaves, preserving the Union - sure. But the man was the most underestimated political figure we've ever had. I can't help but admire him that way.

I cannot see how the blame can lie with the Confederacy when war could have been averted had Lincoln not resorted to force. Letting the states go was an option, even though it was not a popular one. The south wanted independence, and was willing to fight to get it if they had to. Reminds me of another small group of states who wanted a country of their own 90 or so years earlier. Someone from the south should see The War of Northern Agression for what it was- The Failed War for Independence.

Oh, I recognize it for what it was. But it takes two to tango. We wanted our cake and we wanted to eat it too, and so we let our egos and our tempers get in the way of our intellects. If they South really wanted to secede, it should have been building up the infrastructure and capability necessary to counter the North's vastly superior manpower pool to do so.

The founding fathers had the convenience of an ocean seperating them from England. The only thing seperating north from south was either the imaginary Mason-Dixon line, or the tiny flow of the Potomac. We weren't prepared, we were overaggressive, and we failed.

I see your point and counter with : The former Soviet states didn't hand over their military equipment to Russia (or all their nukes, for that matter), England didn't reclaim the arms left in the U.S. after the War of Independence, etc. If the Confederacy truly was a new nation, history tells us whatever "government" property the former government controlled, is transfered to the new government. Of course, history also tells us the former government is usually not too happy about that.

That's only when the old government is dissolved. The United States still existed, unlike the Soviet Union. And Great Britain DID keep a number of its outposts until after the War of 1812. It was one of the sticking points after the Treaty of Ghent was signed.

But getting back to the point of the thread - anyone who claims that George W. Bush is the worst President we've ever had needs to read more.

But getting back to the point of the thread - anyone who claims that George W. Bush is the worst President we've ever had needs to read more.

Agreed. He's not going to top any "best president" lists in a hundred years, but there are clearly several below him.

And to think, just a few years ago, he shattered the sitting president approval rating. Same thing happened to his daddy if I recall...

I concede that it was a hotbed issue, and one that was not resolved until The War Between The States. However, I disagree that war was inevitable. Had Linclon not acted with force, the issue would have been decided without bloodshed. Of course, there would be a lot fewer states today, and most likely a vastly different world. I do not see "preserving the union" as a valid argument, especially in a nation inspired by Locke.


The confederates fired first. They made their bed, I refuse to feel sorry for them having to sleep in it.

Was war inevitable? We'll never know. It did settle the "collection of nations" or "single nation" question once and for all, though.


Ahh, but the Emancipation Proclaimation didn't free all the slaves. Just the ones in the "rebelling" states. The few slave states who remained in the Union still had "legal slavery", although in reality that is just splitting hairs. And you are correct that Lincoln did not have authority to do so. He also didn't have authority to carve one state out of another, like he did with West Virginia. And he didn't have authority to wage war on the South. I list him as one of the worst presidents because he violated the constitution wholesale.

It depends on whether or not you recognize the confederacy as a legitimate nation. I don't. In a civil war, things can become ambiguous. Though, personally I think Lincoln went way too far in violating the bill of rights.


A few presidents I like did as well, but not to the same degree, and not for an oppressive reason either. Jefferson and the Louisiana Pourchase and Polk and the Dept of the Interior come to mind. Polk had to do something with all that new land, and Jefferson...well, he knew a good deal when he saw it, even though he didn't broker it.
Every president has done as much as they could get away with in stepping outside their constitutional powers.



I cannot see how the blame can lie with the Confederacy when war could have been averted had Lincoln not resorted to force. Letting the states go was an option, even though it was not a popular one. The south wanted independence, and was willing to fight to get it if they had to. Reminds me of another small group of states who wanted a country of their own 90 or so years earlier. Someone from the south should see The War of Northern Agression for what it was- The Failed War for Independence.
They shot first. Made your bed, now you have to sleep in it sort of thing.

Also, can you imagine what would happen if states left whenever they didn't like the outcome of a presidential election? At that time, many other countries in the world were hoping that the United States would fail and disintigrate. Eventually, both union and confederacy would have split into their respective states, which could be easily exploited and conquered by any particularly greedy power that felt like it.


I see your point and counter with : The former Soviet states didn't hand over their military equipment to Russia (or all their nukes, for that matter), England didn't reclaim the arms left in the U.S. after the War of Independence, etc. If the Confederacy truly was a new nation, history tells us whatever "government" property the former government controlled, is transfered to the new government. Of course, history also tells us the former government is usually not too happy about that.

The former soviet republics also didn't start a war with Russia over it, to my knowledge. Even if they had, Russia probably didn't care enough.

The south is actually probably much better off losing, seeing as how their states are net recievers of federal dollars, and many of the former 'union' states are net givers.

Brians Room said it better than I could. Didn't see his post...

FDR- singlehandedly turned the country into a welfare state.
He had no other choice. If you look at his other accomplishments, even a welfare-hater should admit that it's a small price to pay.

I think the question should be; is there anyone better than Bush, the answer is no one.
No. Bush is evil.

He also didn't have authority to carve one state out of another, like he did with West Virginia.Lincoln didn't carve out West Virginia. He accepted the state back into the union after the local residents broke off of Virginia.

He had no other choice. If you look at his other accomplishments, even a welfare-hater should admit that it's a small price to pay.

Um, no. The depression lasted around...11 and a half years, right? FDR was president for 8 of them. At the worst point in the depression, 1938, FDR had been president (AND had a Democratic Congress) for 5 years. WWII and the wartime economy is what ended the Depression, not FDR. Many modern economists now are arguing that FDR's crap is what made the depression last as long as it did.

Lincoln didn't carve out West Virginia. He accepted the state back into the union after the local residents broke off of Virginia.

Article IV, Section 3 of the Constitution says the federal government cannot form states from the jurisdiction of any of the states without the consent of the state legislature. Virginia's state legislature did no such thing, ergo- Lincoln violated Virginia's soverignty by creating West Virginia.

Im very wired on lotsa espresso.. I need to keep busy or imma snap, so i'll watch you guys talk. If this thread actually takes off..

Heres the question: Was there ever a president worse than Bushy? Why was that person worse? Discuss..

Phil Collins.

He hasn't been president yet, but you wait, in 2040 he'll take over and sell your childrens livers to the Venusians. THEN YOU'LL MISS GW!

Here's something to unthink ...
Not only is there the LLG,
there's LLG: The Sequel on the way!!!! :eek:
Sort of like the Seed of Chucky :eek:

Lincoln didn't carve out West Virginia. He accepted the state back into the union after the local residents broke off of Virginia.

Which was a direct violation of the Constitution's prohibition on the creation of new states out of the territory of an old state without the consent of the original state. The Virginia legislature certainly didn't approve of the 'secession' of northern counties from Virginia, and the body of folks who voted themselves into the Union were not the elected representatives of Virginia.

Yet another of Lincoln's questionable actions in direct contravention of the Constitution.

Lincoln was one of the worst presidents in history, everything was purely self driven, i really dont care much for Lincoln.

and if you elect Hillary, then you going to see someone that makes bush look like a saint

The confederates fired first. They made their bed, I refuse to feel sorry for them having to sleep in it.

Was war inevitable? We'll never know. It did settle the "collection of nations" or "single nation" question once and for all, though.

The confederates fired because a military force was attempting to seize property claimed by the Confederate government. I never understood the whole "who fired the first shot" obsession. It didn't really matter is WWI either, did it?

It depends on whether or not you recognize the confederacy as a legitimate nation. I don't. In a civil war, things can become ambiguous. Though, personally I think Lincoln went way too far in violating the bill of rights.

Thank you for proving my point. If the Confederacy was an independant nation, then Lincoln couldn't do anything about the existance of slavery there. But, if they were still states, as he claimed, then he grossly violated the constitution by declaring slavery there to be illegal, while it wasn't outlawed in the middle states. It would be like if Bush raised taxes, but only in states that didn't vote for him.

Every president has done as much as they could get away with in stepping outside their constitutional powers.

I disagree. I already mentioned James Buchanan. What about James Madison who refused to allow money for French refugees, not because he was a heartless bastard, but because the constitution did not have a provision for charitable acts?


Also, can you imagine what would happen if states left whenever they didn't like the outcome of a presidential election? At that time, many other countries in the world were hoping that the United States would fail and disintigrate. Eventually, both union and confederacy would have split into their respective states, which could be easily exploited and conquered by any particularly greedy power that felt like it.

Not true. Dividing the nation was more serious and more deeply rooted then a simple presidential election. Having the ability to split into different nations would be a good thing. Then we could have that separate "Jesusland" country everyone on here is always talking about. I do not see the appeal in such a strong central government. I don't buy the complete disintigration theory at all.


The south is actually probably much better off losing, seeing as how their states are net recievers of federal dollars, and many of the former 'union' states are net givers.

The distribution of federal dollars is a means by which the fed "blackmails" the states into submission. Every wonder why Louisiana raised the drinking age to 21? Things like that should be state issues, but not with an overly powerful federal governent. Something the founding fathers expressly wished to avoid. And it is simply common sense that a more densly populated industrial economy has more flexible capital than a primarily agrarian one.

When someone is singlehandedly responsible for turning a states right's issue/domestic dispute into a war, I can logically blame them for it. There is a reason the much erroneously reviled president before him didn't do anything- he correctly said that the constitution did not give him authority too. Lincoln violated the constitution by contramanding that decision. So yes, he can be beamed for starting it.

Before you call a person with a graduate degree in history a dumbass in reference to a history related topic, you should probably just shut the hell up.

I have a grduate degree, and I am fairly sure that the war started when the confederates fired on fort sumter. Up till that point it was diplomatic wrangleing over how to proceede.

I have a grduate degree, and I am fairly sure that the war started when the confederates fired on fort sumter. Up till that point it was diplomatic wrangleing over how to proceede.

What no gun smilie? I thought first posts HAD to have gun smilies.

Again, first shot obsession. They wouldn't have had to fire had Lincoln not sent the army in.

(edit: oh, and there's another 'a' in graduate. Sorry, I couldn't resist!)

That was my first post ever, so I never posted a gun smile.

The obsession stems from the fact that first shot dictates to the world as a whole, whom they should see as the aggressor. In the case of the civil war the first shot by the south served to confirm to the international community that the confederacy was no longer willing to accept diplomatic solutions.

The first shot is one of the major influencing factors as to why England, France, Russia, Spain, and Prussia all accepted the legitimacy of the Union blockade. So one might make the statement that the south not only started the war with that first shot, but doomed their cause by using it to shoot their foot.

Don't mess with AllCoolNamesAreTaken - he has graduate degrees in both condescension and vitriol. :p

To add to a previously begun Chorus:

James Buchanan.

Traitor.
Failed to take ANY steps to eradicate seditious seccessionists.


Thou Shalt Not Suffer A Rebel To Live!

What no gun smilie? I thought first posts HAD to have gun smilies.

Again, first shot obsession. They wouldn't have had to fire had Lincoln not sent the army in.

(edit: oh, and there's another 'a' in graduate. Sorry, I couldn't resist!)

Actually he was resupplying the Fort.

Just FYI, Locke was pro-North, he held a number of speeches on how the south was not legitimate. He gave one speech on the 5th of November 1861 and another 3 weeks later. This is before the war got big and he never changed his opinion when it did.


I don't mean to be picky, but John Locke died in 1704. :D

Bush never caused the death of 600,000 Americans. Lincoln is the only president that can claim that bodycount.

I am not rich. And I want my damn money back.
Yet, but I'll wager his policies and his missed opportunities will result in the deaths of a great many more.

As to Lincoln, what would you have done? Would you have let the southern states go?

And he did free the slaves. That may not be why he went to war, but the preservation of slavery in the South was why the south rebelled and the Emancipation Proclamation was the executive order that guarenteed freedom to all slaves.

Andrew Jackson was an asshole...

If I felt like spending time on it i'd come up with more, but I'll say that in my lifetime, carter and ford were worse... Clinton raised our taxes to their highest levels since the Commie Roosevelt (hehe).

If not for President Bush, Saddam and the Taliban would still be in power. I don't know if Gore would have had the balls to make a hard decision like those -- to invade and depose bad regimes for the sake of the people in those countries.

I don't mean to be picky, but John Locke died in 1704. :D
LOL, sorry I meant Locks great-grandson who was also named John Locke and held roughly the same stances. He was an MP and held that the original theroies on self-determination only held in legitimate concern. Simply wanting to leave a state was not grounds to do so.

I was doing some readin on the war when I found this thread and I just saw the name and fogot the time difference. I may have been drinking...

If I felt like spending time on it i'd come up with more, but I'll say that in my lifetime, carter and ford were worse... Clinton raised our taxes to their highest levels since the Commie Roosevelt (hehe).

If not for President Bush, Saddam and the Taliban would still be in power. I don't know if Gore would have had the balls to make a hard decision like those -- to invade and depose bad regimes for the sake of the people in those countries.


How can you hate Carter? :(


"...to invade and depose bad regimes for the sake of the people in those countries"

...not having anything to do with emulating his father, republican warmongering (how else could he keep the people scared?), oil, a base for operations in the middle east...



http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,106334,00.html

WASHINGTON — The United States went on high alert for a possible terror attack as Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge (search) said that threat indicators are "perhaps greater now than at any point" since Sept. 11, 2001.

"Extensive and considerable protections have been or soon will be in place all across the country," Ridge said on Sunday in Washington as he announced that the threat level would rise from yellow, or elevated, to orange, the second-highest level.

"Your government will stand at the ready 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to stop terrorism during the holiday season and beyond."

Americans were told to stick to their travel plans despite intelligence indicating the Al Qaeda (search) terrorist network is seeking again to use planes as weapons and exploit suspected weakness in U.S. aviation security.

Some of the intelligence information gathered in the past few days suggests that "extremists abroad" are anticipating attacks that will rival or exceed the scope of those of Sept. 11, Ridge said.

He also said officials did not see a connection between last weekend's capture of ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein (search) and the heightened security alert.

The threat information comes from multiple, credible sources but officials are unaware of a specific target or means of attack, added a senior law enforcement official.

Some of the intercepted communications and other intelligence mentions New York, Washington and unspecified cities on the West Coast, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity[/U. Authorities also are concerned about dams, bridges, nuclear plants, chemical facilities and other public works.

Thousands of state and local law enforcement agencies have received an FBI advisory urging special notice of sites that could be a conceivable target and potential security upgrades, the official said.

In addition, Ridge has contacted his counterparts in Canada and Mexico about increasing border security.

The State Department issued a worldwide caution to U.S. citizens overseas. "Al Qaeda and its associated organizations have struck in the Middle East in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and in Europe in Istanbul, Turkey," the department's Web site said. "We therefore assess that other geographic locations could be venues for the next round of attacks.

"We expect Al Qaeda will strive for new attacks designed to be more devastating than the Sept. 11 attack, possibly involving nonconventional weapons such as chemical or biological agents," the State Department advised.

At the hastily arranged news conference at Homeland Security headquarters, Ridge said credible intelligence sources "suggest the possibility of attacks against the homeland around the holiday season [U]and beyond."

"The strategic indicators, including Al Qaeda's continued desire to carry out attacks against our homeland, are perhaps greater now than at any point since Sept. 11," he said.

The alert level had stood at yellow, an elevated risk and in the middle of the five-color scale, since May.

The White House declined comment, referring all questions to Ridge's department.

Ridge said the government acted after U.S. intelligence agencies "received a substantial increase in the volume of threat-related intelligence reports."

"Recent reporting reiterates that Al Qaeda continues to consider using aircraft as a weapon. They are evaluating procedures both here and abroad to find gaps in our security posture that can be exploited," Ridge said.

But he added that U.S. aviation "is far more secure" than ever.

As a result of the change in threat level, all federal departments and agencies were putting action plans in place and stepping up security at airports, border crossings and ports, Ridge said.

The secretary sought to reassure Americans about the warning, urging them not to disrupt holiday plans and to use common sense and report suspicious items and to prepare or review personal emergency plans.

"We have not raised the threat level in this country for six months, but we have raised it before. And as before, Americans can be assured that we know what we must do and we are doing it," Ridge said.

Federal aviation security officials were in contact Sunday with general aviation officials, including the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, which represents 400,000, or two-thirds of all pilots in the United States.

U.S. officials by the end of last week were telling holiday travelers to be vigilant about the threat of attacks. The warning was prompted in part by a raised level of ominous intercepted communications that has not quieted for months.

On Friday, the Arabic television network Al-Jazeera aired a new statement from Ayman al-Zawahri, bin Laden's chief deputy. The CIA said Saturday it believes the tape is authentic.

"We are still chasing the Americans and their allies everywhere, even in their homeland," according to the voice on the tape.

Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said earlier Sunday that officials were trying to determine whether the increased material detected was an aberration or something more serious.

"There is no doubt, from all the intelligence we pick up from Al Qaeda, that they want to do away with our way of life," he told "Fox News Sunday" after his return from a trip to Iraq and Afghanistan.

Four times before had the threat level risen to orange. Each change sets off a flurry of increased security measures by cities, states and businesses. The lowest two levels, green and blue, and the highest, red, have not been used since the system was put in place in early 2002.

That was a lot of text that just got posted.

Sort of like the Seed of Chucky :eek:
*FLORT*
Hahaha!

Ya know, if someone were to play him in a live-action rep of NS, i *swear* it'd have to be a younger Matt Frewer. Whaddya think?

Phil Collins.

He hasn't been president yet, but you wait, in 2040 he'll take over and sell your childrens livers to the Venusians. THEN YOU'LL MISS GW!
Well, he upholds a traditional value, obviously .. marriage. He's through his third! :P

Well, he upholds a traditional value, obviously .. marriage. He's through his third! :P

After DUMPING HIS SECOND BY FAX

Not that, in any way, thats one of my major beefs with Mr Collins, oh no.

Why would i need that when "Buster" exists?

In terms os leaders of developed western democratic nations.... perhaps Berlusconi is his only match.

yeah, Clinton.

Who in their right minds would want such a disgusting pervert as a president? Seriously? Not to mention the fact that he almost royally fucked us over when he practically declared war on Iraq! All those fucking Air Raids....

yeah, Clinton.

Who in their right minds would want such a disgusting pervert as a president? Seriously? Not to mention the fact that he almost royally fucked us over when he practically declared war on Iraq! All those fucking Air Raids....

Pervert? Because he got a blowjob from a mildly attractive intern? Please....

After DUMPING HIS SECOND BY FAXHe's a busy guy! He has sappy soundtracks to write and weird dances to work on!

Why would i need that when "Buster" exists?
Ouch. That's a painful memory i thought i'd successfully repressed. Wrong again, now comes the slow, sobbing healing.

The only former president thats still alive that I have no interest in meeting is Carter, so I say him. Other than that, I dunno. Taft sucked pretty bad.

I think TV Evangelist, Pat Robertson would make people nostalgic for those good old days of Bush, if that nutbar ever got in the White House.

http://www.bongonews.com/layout1.php?event=2008&topic=pat+robertson

Im very wired on lotsa espresso.. I need to keep busy or imma snap, so i'll watch you guys talk. If this thread actually takes off..

Heres the question: Was there ever a president worse than Bushy? Why was that person worse? Discuss..


bush snr,

ther may not be a worse president for the united states but depending on what country you live in there have been worse ppl.