NationStates Jolt Archive

Who do you feel is the most overrated president?

I would say Abraham Lincoln. He was an outright racist, with his plans for shipping blacks to Africa (or otherwise out of America), his support for Black Laws that kept free blacks out of states such as his own Illinois and the territories, his corporate welfare schemes for railroads, steamboats and canals, and other expansions of government, his suppression of civil liberties, and his advocacy of total war (e.g. Shenandoah Valley, Sherman's March Through Georgia.)

I would say Abraham Lincoln. He was an outright racist...

You might want to cite your sources when posting inflammatory claims like that, man.

All of them. Not just American ones either.

But I don't like pudding...

All of them. Not just American ones either.

Oh, no, you didn't just trash Tarja Halonen!

President Chimpy Mc Flight suit

Teddy Roosevelt. He was a murderous, violent twit who waged a war for economic profit and made a mockery of the White House. His Progressivism hardly makes up for his impirialism.

President Chimpy Mc Flight suit

Yeah, except he's got the lowest approval rating since Carter, so he can't be overrated unless you expect his approval rating to be 0%.

...in which case, I concur.

You might want to cite your sources when posting inflammatory claims like that, man.

OK, sure.

I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.
From his fourth debate with Stephen Douglas.

reagan.

for one:

I'm still waiting for my trickle down

and second:

"trees pollute more than cars" << wtf is that all about?

and third:

"Moral Majority". not really too much more to say on that point

You might want to cite your sources when posting inflammatory claims like that, man.

Probably this book: http://www.amazon.com/Real-Lincoln-Abraham-Agenda-Unnecessary/dp/0761536418

The author has spoken at my University a few times. Frankly, he's a douche.



On-topic: Reagan. Hands down.

Well, Teddy does give him a run for the douche-baggery award.

But I still think Reagan wins. How can people believe that a former spokesman for GE was demonizing the Soviet Union because he just loves freedom? I'm sure it has everything to do with a love freedom and nothing to do with increased tax dollars going towards GE. Nothing at all.

Reagan and Clinton were pretty horrible, but FDR was an outright racist Communist dictator.

As for Lincoln... he ended slavery. That equals uberwin.

Jfk

Yeah, except he's got the lowest approval rating since Carter, so he can't be overrated unless you expect his approval rating to be 0%.

...in which case, I concur.

Actually I've been expecting his approval rating to be "booted out of office on his ass" for the past five years or so.

As for Lincoln... he ended slavery. That equals uberwin.

But every other country in the Western hemisphere did it peacefully. So that's like saying I should be praised for being able to drive to the supermarket, even though I mow down several people in the process.

Washington... he's only famous because he was the first one. :p

But every other country in the Western hemisphere did it peacefully.

... before or after the USA did theirs...

Teddy Roosevelt. He was a murderous, violent twit who waged a war for economic profit and made a mockery of the White House. His Progressivism hardly makes up for his impirialism.

But Imperialism is fun!

would say Abraham Lincoln. He was an outright racist, with his plans for shipping blacks to Africa (or otherwise out of America), his support for Black Laws that kept free blacks out of states such as his own Illinois and the territories, his corporate welfare schemes for railroads, steamboats and canals, and other expansions of government, his suppression of civil liberties, and his advocacy of total war (e.g. Shenandoah Valley, Sherman's March Through Georgia.)

Thats quite over-exageratted. Besides have you ever heard of the concept "child of his time".

... before or after the USA did theirs...

Brazil didn't ban Slavery until 1888.

But every other country in the Western hemisphere did it peacefully. So that's like saying I should be praised for being able to drive to the supermarket, even though I mow down several people in the process.

If driving to the supermarket somehow ended slavery, then yes, you'd deserve praise for that.

... before or after the USA did theirs...

Argentina-1813
Colombia-1814
Chile-1823
Central America-1824
Mexico-1829
Bolivia-1831
Uruguay-1842
French and Danish Colonies-1848
Ecuador-1851
Peru-1854
Venezuela-1854

Before.

Teddy Roosevelt. He was a murderous, violent twit who waged a war for economic profit and made a mockery of the White House. His Progressivism hardly makes up for his impirialism.
I concur!

You're also the leader of my party. This struck me as odd.

Who do you feel is the most overrated president?

I would say Abraham Lincoln. He was an outright racist, with his plans for shipping blacks to Africa (or otherwise out of America), his support for Black Laws that kept free blacks out of states such as his own Illinois and the territories, his corporate welfare schemes for railroads, steamboats and canals, and other expansions of government, his suppression of civil liberties, and his advocacy of total war (e.g. Shenandoah Valley, Sherman's March Through Georgia.)

Indeed, what merit is there in judging a man by the context in which he loved.....:rolleyes:

But every other country in the Western hemisphere did it peacefully. So that's like saying I should be praised for being able to drive to the supermarket, even though I mow down several people in the process.
No other county in the Western Hemisphere depended on slavery as much as the US.
And Haiti didn't end slavery peacefully so, meh.
From his fourth debate with Stephen Douglas.
You know his opinion changed right? By the time of his last state of the union, he was in favor of blacks getting the right to vote.

Oh yeah, and definitely Teddy.

Reagan is a close second, but I doubt anyone will give two shits about him once all the baby boomers are dead though.

People are hating on the Roosevelts and Lincoln?

That's just plain and simple stupid, uninformed blather.

FDR. He was a fascist bastard who didn't die nearly soon enough.

Washington... he's only famous because he was the first one. :p

as the first popularly elected president, he may be overrated, but you gotta give credit to the military genius that led the revolution to vistory.

also, this may be an urban myth, but isn't there that story about how after the revolution, they offered to make him the first king, and he turned it down.

also, he apparently invented cocaine (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pc9y5ayeeb4)

But every other country in the Western hemisphere did it peacefully. So that's like saying I should be praised for being able to drive to the supermarket, even though I mow down several people in the process.

Well, at the risk of turning this into a Civil War debate, I must ask: Was this Lincoln's fault or the Southerners? Who started the War? If I remember my Civil War history correctly, and I could be wrong because it's been some time and I've never been big into the Civil War, not a single state right had been violated before the Southerners left the Union and attacked Fort Sumter.

No other county in the Western Hemisphere depended on slavery as much as the US.
And Haiti didn't end slavery peacefully so, meh.

But it still could have been done peacefully, without the horrific bloodshed that the Civil War had. Was it really worth having hundreds of thousands of people die over?

You know his opinion changed right? By the time of his last state of the union, he was in favor of blacks getting the right to vote.

Because they'd vote Republican. (And at the Hampton Roads "Peace" Conference, his only condition was that the South rejoin the Union. Slavery was not something important to him.)

OK, sure.


From his fourth debate with Stephen Douglas.

It could always have been a political tactic to win over the racist majority?

Reagan definatly, i love the guy but he wasn't that great a president

Kennedy. Sorry.

Kennedy. Sorry.
Well, his policy in Vietnam was a disaster.

Kennedy. Sorry.

The bastard wasn't assassinated nearly soon enough.

But it still could have been done peacefully, without the horrific bloodshed that the Civil War had. Was it really worth having hundreds of thousands of people die over?

There was absolutely no way in hell that the South was going to give up slavery. And I do not view the deaths of hundreds of thousands of racists as a bad thing.

Kennedy. Sorry.

???

What was so bad about Kennedy, aside from his New Frontier welfare-state garbage?

I'm still waiting for my trickle down



It was the yellowish unpleasant smelling stuff.....

Well, at the risk of turning this into a Civil War debate, I must ask: Was this Lincoln's fault or the Southerners? Who started the War? If I remember my Civil War history correctly, and I could be wrong because it's been some time and I've never been big into the Civil War, not a single state right had been violated before the Southerners left the Union and attacked Fort Sumter.

But the South believed that the Whigs had been acting unconstitutionally, in its very high tarriffs and corporate welfare. They even included prohibitions against the above, along with other measures to weaken the state, in their Constitution. They felt very much (as did their allies, the Cherokees, who feared what the Union had been doing to their fellows and continued to do after the war) that the Federal government was overstepping its limits and becoming much too centralized and a threat to liberty. And, as evidenced by Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus and free speech, they weren't too far off.

(Not to mention that in his Inaugural Address, Lincoln said he had no desire to abolish slavery, but that he would attack any state that failed to pay its tarriffs. And Fort Sumter also functioned as a customs house...)

It could always have been a political tactic to win over the racist majority?

Oh, OK. I suppose it's OK to support racist measures such as Black Laws (which kept free blacks out of his home state of Illinois as well as remove their civil rights), just as long as you can get people to vote for you.

:mad: its the guy on the 20 doller bills! he was a big "i hate indians guy". so why is he on the 20$!?! it should be Ozzy Ozzborn or Bill Gate! (or a memorial to the hello-cost):mp5: :sniper: :gundge: :headbang:

What was so bad about Kennedy, aside from his New Frontier welfare-state garbage?

He sold out at the Bay of Pigs by cancelling air support, ensuring it would be a failure.

He forced Laos to accept a "coalition government" with communists (leading to the eventual communization of Laos).

He was a dickless coward during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

He approved the coup against Diem in South Viet Nam; bad as Diem was, his removal created a massive power vacuum.

He wanted to hand over the U.S. military to the United Nations (read the State Department document "Freedom from War" for details).

He approved the sale of ball-bearings to the U.S.S.R., which allowed them to aim their missiles.

In short, the asshole did not die nearly soon enough.

:mad: its the guy on the 20 doller bills! he was a big "i hate indians guy". so why is he on the 20$!?! it should be Ozzy Ozzborn or Bill Gate! (or a memorial to the hello-cost):mp5: :sniper: :gundge: :headbang:

Brain....Hurts..

:mad: its the guy on the 20 doller bills! he was a big "i hate indians guy". so why is he on the 20$!?! it should be Ozzy Ozzborn or Bill Gate! (or a memorial to the hello-cost):mp5: :sniper: :gundge: :headbang:

Andrew Jackson, a.k.a. "Old Hickory."

:mad: its the guy on the 20 doller bills! he was a big "i hate indians guy". so why is he on the 20$!?! it should be Ozzy Ozzborn or Bill Gate! (or a memorial to the hello-cost)

Yeah. King Andy...now there was a real prince.

He sold out at the Bay of Pigs by cancelling air support, ensuring it would be a failure.

He forced Laos to accept a "coalition government" with communists (leading to the eventual communization of Laos).

He was a dickless coward during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

He approved the coup against Diem in South Viet Nam; bad as Diem was, his removal created a massive power vacuum.

He wanted to hand over the U.S. military to the United Nations (read the State Department document "Freedom from War" for details).

He approved the sale of ball-bearings to the U.S.S.R., which allowed them to aim their missiles.

In short, the asshole did not die nearly soon enough.

Okay. Now tell us what makes him a bad president.

But it still could have been done peacefully, without the horrific bloodshed that the Civil War had.
How else would the South have been convinced to give up their slaves?
Was it really worth having hundreds of thousands of people die over?
To end slavery? Millions of deaths would be acceptable.
Because they'd vote Republican. (And at the Hampton Roads "Peace" Conference, his only condition was that the South rejoin the Union. Slavery was not something important to him.)
The Thirteenth Amendment was already in the works, getting rid of slavery there was unnecessary.
You are right that he didn't care too much about slavery at the beginning of the war (he was always against it though), but he did by the end. He changed, and for that he deserves credit.
Now, if you want to talk about Lincoln's Indian policies, that's a completely different story.
FDR. He was a fascist bastard who didn't die nearly soon enough.
He was a great man who saved this country from socialism and coexistence with fascism.
People are hating on the Roosevelts and Lincoln?

That's just plain and simple stupid, uninformed blather.
Oh, they're plenty informed with misinformation.

:mad: its the guy on the 20 doller bills! he was a big "i hate indians guy". so why is he on the 20$!?! it should be Ozzy Ozzborn or Bill Gate! (or a memorial to the hello-cost):mp5: :sniper: :gundge: :headbang:

I don't think you can count him as being overrated since the majority of historians acknowledge his flaws.

Andrew Jackson, definitely.

He was probably the first major American demagogue politician, claiming to be a "man of the people" despite consistently supporting the federal government over state and individual rights. The Indian genocide was just the icing on the cake.

In the modern day, however, I'd say Reagan is much more overrated.

Okay. Now tell us what makes him a bad president.

Uh...I just did.

They felt very muchthat the Federal government was overstepping its limits and becoming much too centralized and a threat to liberty.
That's where your argument loses any credibility. If they cared so much about liberty, they shouldn't have been practicing slavery. It's all a bunch of regionalist bullshit.

FDR. Closet commie didn't die off soon enough. Had he tried to implement his socialism without the effects of the Great Depression, the people would've tossed his crippled ass out as soon as his first term was over.

And I'm related to the SOB. . .

Why isn't George W. Bush on the poll options?

FDR. Closet commie didn't die off soon enough. Had he tried to implement his socialism without the effects of the Great Depression, the people would've tossed his crippled ass out as soon as his first term was over.

And I'm related to the SOB. . .

FDR was a fascist.

He was a dickless coward during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Would you have preferred that he start World War 3?

Yeah. King Andy...now there was a real prince.

He used his Veto power to keep a terminally corrupt Congress from overstepping its Constitutional boundaries. If only we had such a President today...

VOTE FOR RON PAUL GODDAMMIT!

Andrew Jackson, definitely.

He was probably the first major American demagogue politician, claiming to be a "man of the people" despite consistently supporting the federal government over state and individual rights. The Indian genocide was just the icing on the cake.

In the modern day, however, I'd say Reagan is much more overrated.

Yeah. There's a reason I call him King Andy.

Why isn't George W. Bush on the poll options?

Because most NSers are smart enough to not overrate him. ;)

Would you have preferred that he start World War 3?

We could have (and should have) easily destroyed the missile sites. Moreover, at the time of the CMC, our nuclear arsennel outnumbered that of the Soviets by 8 to 1.

FDR. Closet commie didn't die off soon enough. Had he tried to implement his socialism without the effects of the Great Depression, the people would've tossed his crippled ass out as soon as his first term was over.
If he hadn't tried to implement his policies, a socialist revolution would not have been far off. People will only starve for so long. His Keynesian economics, which by the way are not socialist, saved this country from becoming communist.
And I'm related to the SOB. . .
You should be proud.

But the South believed that the Whigs had been acting unconstitutionally, in its very high tarriffs and corporate welfare. They even included prohibitions against the above, along with other measures to weaken the state, in their Constitution. They felt very much (as did their allies, the Cherokees, who feared what the Union had been doing to their fellows and continued to do after the war) that the Federal government was overstepping its limits and becoming much too centralized and a threat to liberty. And, as evidenced by Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus and free speech, they weren't too far off.

(Not to mention that in his Inaugural Address, Lincoln said he had no desire to abolish slavery, but that he would attack any state that failed to pay its tarriffs. And Fort Sumter also functioned as a customs house...)

Okay, so instead of using the democratic process, they went against democracy, left the union, and made their rights entirely dependent upon who could produce the most arms and equip the most men? Sounds logical to me.

Moreover, at the time of the CMC, our nuclear arsennel outnumbered that of the Soviets by 8 to 1.
Still enough to level every major city in the US. No one wins in nuclear war.

Why isn't George W. Bush on the poll options?

because he doesn't have high approval ratings...

Because most NSers are smart enough to not overrate him. ;)

Ah, but in RL...

Ah, but in RL...

More and more people are seeing the light, though.

More and more people are seeing the light, though.
They are not. Bush has failed in Iraq. Americans hate failures. They hate Bush because he has failed.
Those people are still conservatives and reactionaries and thus the only light they'll ever see is of the non-metaphorical variety

Uh...I just did.

I didn't see anything that could qualify as a "bad".

They are not. Bush has failed in Iraq. Americans hate failures. They hate Bush because he has failed.
Those people are still conservatives and reactionaries and thus the only light they'll ever see is of the non-metaphorical variety

Yeah, that's true. :(

If he hadn't tried to implement his policies, a socialist revolution would not have been far off. People will only starve for so long. His Keynesian economics, which by the way are not socialist, saved this country from becoming communist.

So when he tried to bring the nation's entire steel industry under Federal control, that wasn't Communist?

Ah, but in RL...

...he still has low approval ratings.

So when he tried to bring the nation's entire steel industry under Federal control, that wasn't Communist?

More Socialist; if you squint your eyes a bit.

Maybe quasi-Fascist.

So when he tried to bring the nation's entire steel industry under Federal control, that wasn't Communist?
That depends entirely on his reasons for doing so.

Reagan, because he didn't freakin' bring down communism. The man does not deserve the lionization he has recieved.

Ronald Reagan...he was just some Conservative nutjob.

How else would the South have been convinced to give up their slaves?

Compensation, like every other country that ended slavery. Basically, you'd either A.) Give everyone a certain level of compensation, or B.) Say that all slaves born after a certain date will receive freedom on a certain birthday. I prefer the former, quite honestly, and it's what Great Britain did.

To end slavery? Millions of deaths would be acceptable.

But even if you could end it without touching a hair on anyone's head? Why add more human suffering?

The Thirteenth Amendment was already in the works, getting rid of slavery there was unnecessary.
You are right that he didn't care too much about slavery at the beginning of the war (he was always against it though), but he did by the end. He changed, and for that he deserves credit.
Now, if you want to talk about Lincoln's Indian policies, that's a completely different story.

But in the Hampton Roads peace conference, he explicitly told Vice President Alexander Stephens that the Emancipation Proclamation was only a miltiary measure, and that if the Confederacy rejoined they could keep their slaves. Had the Confederacy rejoined at this point, they could have killed the 13th Amendment if they wanted to.

That's where your argument loses any credibility. If they cared so much about liberty, they shouldn't have been practicing slavery. It's all a bunch of regionalist bullshit.

Yes, they should have. But just because they denied liberty in one place did not mean it was OK for the Union to expropriate them. And slavery was a dying institution anyway- centralism, not at all, it's still quite healthy today.

Okay, so instead of using the democratic process, they went against democracy, left the union, and made their rights entirely dependent upon who could produce the most arms and equip the most men? Sounds logical to me.

I'm guessing you have signatures off or otherwise did not see my sig.

Anyway, the South felt that the Union was a voluntary association. Jefferson even said so in his Inaugural Address, and if anyone knows, he should know. They did not want to put up with the North's mercantilist economic policies anymore, and thus packed up and left. I see nothing wrong with that.

I'm guessing you have signatures off or otherwise did not see my sig.

Anyway, the South felt that the Union was a voluntary association. Jefferson even said so in his Inaugural Address, and if anyone knows, he should know. They did not want to put up with the North's mercantilist economic policies anymore, and thus packed up and left. I see nothing wrong with that.

Yes, signatures are off.

I do agree with the right of states to leave the Union. However, I don't think the South exhausted all possible avenues for the reduction, or end, of tarrifs. It generally takes a bit of time to alter government policies.

Even if they did, this fact still stands: the CSA attacked the USA. Not the other way around.

Compensation, like every other country that ended slavery. Basically, you'd either A.) Give everyone a certain level of compensation, or B.) Say that all slaves born after a certain date will receive freedom on a certain birthday. I prefer the former, quite honestly, and it's what Great Britain did.

That would be a wonderful idea if not for the fact that it wouldn't have had a snowball's chance in hell of happening - it's unconstitutional at the Federal level, and the states had no interest in abolishing slavery on their own.

But even if you could end it without touching a hair on anyone's head? Why add more human suffering?

If I could wave a magic wand and turn the world into puppies and rainbows, I'd do it, but that doesn't mean that it's possible.

And slavery was a dying institution anyway- centralism, not at all, it's still quite healthy today.

Slavery was not even remotely close to dying. When we first declared independence, yes, it was dying, but then the cotton engine came along, and cotton became about fifty times as profitable as it had been before...

as for the rise in centralism, you can blame that on the 17th Amendment.

Lincoln Lincoln Lincoln!!!

I'm no historian, but I know for a fact when he "Freed" all the slaves, why didn't he free the slaves in South New Jersey? Everyone kinda grazes over that.

So when he tried to bring the nation's entire steel industry under Federal control, that wasn't Communist?

If nationalization is Communist then during the Cold War practically all our allies in the Cold War were Commies.

if reagan wasn't on the list i'd have voted other and said gwb. he can't be rated low enough.

If nationalization is Communist then during the Cold War practically all our allies in the Cold War were Commies.

Would you care to back that up with something?

if reagan wasn't on the list i'd have voted other and said gwb. he can't be rated low enough.

Imagine how much it would suck to have lost an election to somebody who can't really be underrated.

Kerry and Gore have my sympathies.


Who was that guy who lost a senate or govoner or somethign election to a dead guy? That would be more sucky than loosing to Bush, but not much.

Imagine how much it would suck to have lost an election to somebody who can't really be underrated.

Kerry and Gore have my sympathies.


Who was that guy who lost a senate or govoner or somethign election to a dead guy? That would be more sucky than loosing to Bush, but not much.

It was a republican in this past election, I can't remember the name. But, he lost to the recently deceased Carnahan.

Would you care to back that up with something?

The UK, possibly Americas closest ally during the Cold War, nationalised huge portions of it's industry and infastructure - some was only denationaised in the last few years, and at least one of the biggest industries is still nationalised - Healthcare.

Would you care to back that up with something?

UK Nationalisation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalization#United_Kingdom)

OK, sure.

From his fourth debate with Stephen Douglas.

I have just been refuted. Did all our early presidents behave like bastards? And no, this isn't an invitation for Fass to troll Americans.

Teddy Roosevelt. He was a murderous, violent twit who waged a war for economic profit and made a mockery of the White House. His Progressivism hardly makes up for his impirialism.

Hold on -you must consider the time period. If I'm not confusing Teddy with FDR, he was elected at a time when the majority of Americans felt capitalism was on the way out, and actually sent him letters advising him on how to be more "dictatorlike"

It was either Teddy or FDR...


Lincoln was a political genius, and I recommend you realize he averted decades of conflicts with the total war of the Civil War.

But every other country in the Western hemisphere did it peacefully. So that's like saying I should be praised for being able to drive to the supermarket, even though I mow down several people in the process.

Wrong. What about the slave revolution in Haiti (then St. Domingue)?

More and more people are seeing the light, though.

We can definitely hope.

Argentina-1813
Colombia-1814
Chile-1823
Central America-1824
Mexico-1829
Bolivia-1831
Uruguay-1842
French and Danish Colonies-1848
Ecuador-1851
Peru-1854
Venezuela-1854

Before.

What have you got against:

Haiti -1791.
Denmark -1792
1794 - France, but it's repealed by Napolean eight years later :(
Britain -1807.

UK Nationalisation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalization#United_Kingdom)

Okay. Now show me the same for all of the other NATO member nations.

What have you got against:

Haiti -1791.
Denmark -1792
1794 - France, but it's repealed by Napolean eight years later :(
Britain -1807.

Because I'm a hatemonger. No, seriously, I forgot about those (I knew I forgot Britain.) And Haiti did it violently.

Wrong. What about the slave revolution in Haiti (then St. Domingue)?

OK, every country BUT Haiti. Satisfied?

That would be a wonderful idea if not for the fact that it wouldn't have had a snowball's chance in hell of happening - it's unconstitutional at the Federal level, and the states had no interest in abolishing slavery on their own.

Well, Southern abolitionism used to be rather strong, until types like John Brown started to get way out of control. But if other countries could have ended slavery peacefully, then the US could have too. If the South had seceded successfully, they would have had pressure on them to abolish slavery. In fact, Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the Confederacy, was willing to abolish slavery in exchange for peace.

If I could wave a magic wand and turn the world into puppies and rainbows, I'd do it, but that doesn't mean that it's possible.

Other countries did it. Why was the US impaired from doing so?

Slavery was not even remotely close to dying. When we first declared independence, yes, it was dying, but then the cotton engine came along, and cotton became about fifty times as profitable as it had been before...

Not so. Slavery in the South was not a viable enterprise for most people. The associated costs of keeping slaves, like housing etc., made it economically difficult. There were some who made fantastic profits off of it, but then again there are people who make fantastic profits off of stock speculation- most people don't do quite so well.

as for the rise in centralism, you can blame that on the 17th Amendment.

Blame it on Henry Clay's American system, which was the father of Lincoln's mercantilism.

Yes, signatures are off.

I do agree with the right of states to leave the Union. However, I don't think the South exhausted all possible avenues for the reduction, or end, of tarrifs. It generally takes a bit of time to alter government policies.

Even if they did, this fact still stands: the CSA attacked the USA. Not the other way around.

I think it was testament enough that rather than try to bother with changing the government policies, the South seceded. The North was extremely politically dominant at the time, and the South perceived that any further negotiations would be futile. Yes, the South did attack Fort Sumter. But I think they were justified in doing so, since they were no longer participating in the organization that maintained Fort Sumter, a customs house and thus a symbol of oppression to Southerners.

Compensation, like every other country that ended slavery. Basically, you'd either A.) Give everyone a certain level of compensation, or B.) Say that all slaves born after a certain date will receive freedom on a certain birthday. I prefer the former, quite honestly, and it's what Great Britain did.
1.) Rewarding people for owning slaves is reprehensible.
2.) They wouldn't have given up their slaves.
But even if you could end it without touching a hair on anyone's head? Why add more human suffering?
We couldn't have.
But in the Hampton Roads peace conference, he explicitly told Vice President Alexander Stephens that the Emancipation Proclamation was only a miltiary measure, and that if the Confederacy rejoined they could keep their slaves. Had the Confederacy rejoined at this point, they could have killed the 13th Amendment if they wanted to.
He wasn't being honest. He wanted to end slavery. That's why the union succeede in the first place, fear of an abolitionist president.
Yes, they should have. But just because they denied liberty in one place did not mean it was OK for the Union to expropriate them.
Yes, actually. It does make it ok. Slavery is the greatest collective crime next to Genocide.
And slavery was a dying institution anyway- centralism, not at all, it's still quite healthy today.
Slavery was not dieing fast enough and thank reason for centralism.
Anyway, the South felt that the Union was a voluntary association.
Well guess what? It isn't.
Jefferson even said so in his Inaugural Address, and if anyone knows, he should know.
I don't see how you could take the man who wrote the Declaration of Independence seriously, ever. Or at least believe a word he said.
They did not want to put up with the North's mercantilist economic policies anymore, and thus packed up and left. I see nothing wrong with that.
They left because they were going to have to give up their slaves. They would have implemented different but equal tariffs if they'd won independence. Every government did so at the time. Oly way to effectively raise revenue before income taxes.

The Confederacy was nothing more than a plantation dominated aristocracy. There was nothing noble or honorable about it.
The Confederates were racists, slaveholders, and traitors not only to the Union but to mankind.

Well, Southern abolitionism used to be rather strong, until types like John Brown started to get way out of control. But if other countries could have ended slavery peacefully, then the US could have too.

Yes, we COULD have, just like Britain COULD repeal all of its gun laws. But I'm not exactly holding my breath.

If the South had seceded successfully, they would have had pressure on them to abolish slavery.

We've been putting pressure on Cuba, North Korea, and China to stop being Communist, and that's been working so wonderfully, hasn't it?

Other countries did it. Why was the US impaired from doing so?

Because the southern states were full of racist assholes who wouldn't listen to reason.

Not so. Slavery in the South was not a viable enterprise for most people. The associated costs of keeping slaves, like housing etc., made it economically difficult. There were some who made fantastic profits off of it, but then again there are people who make fantastic profits off of stock speculation- most people don't do quite so well.

And, then as now, it was the rich who had the most influence in politics.

I think it was testament enough that rather than try to bother with changing the government policies, the South seceded. The North was extremely politically dominant at the time, and the South perceived that any further negotiations would be futile. Yes, the South did attack Fort Sumter. But I think they were justified in doing so, since they were no longer participating in the organization that maintained Fort Sumter, a customs house and thus a symbol of oppression to Southerners.

But they were still in the wrong. Instead of following laws, procedures, etc. that all US States agreed to, the South said "Screw you guys, I'm going home."

And how were they justified in attacking Fort Sumter? It was owned by the American government. When certain European countries said "no" to Iraq war, would the USA have been justified in attacking their embassies?

But they were still in the wrong. Instead of following laws, procedures, etc. that all US States agreed to, the South said "Screw you guys, I'm going home."

Why should they have to continue to associate with people who were quite intent on screwing them over? The US seceded from Britain, why should the South have been forced to stay?

And how were they justified in attacking Fort Sumter? It was owned by the American government. When certain European countries said "no" to Iraq war, would the USA have been justified in attacking their embassies?

Embassies are not military installations used for taxing the surrounding area. Not to mention that Lincoln continued to supply the fort knowing full well it would anger the South.

Yes, we COULD have, just like Britain COULD repeal all of its gun laws. But I'm not exactly holding my breath.

It was achieved elsewhere. It could have been achieved here. No good reason has been given as to why this path could not have been followed instead, other than "No they wouldn't!"

We've been putting pressure on Cuba, North Korea, and China to stop being Communist, and that's been working so wonderfully, hasn't it?

Cuba and North Korea are not our friends. China has radically changed their economy, despite political competition, and is our biggest import market.

Because the southern states were full of racist assholes who wouldn't listen to reason.

And all the slaveholders elsewhere were egalitarians who were just waiting to give up their slaves?

And, then as now, it was the rich who had the most influence in politics.

Not necessarily the richest- unions are not "rich", but they still wield quite a bit of strength. And these plantation rich would have been in time replaced by a middle class that would have shunned chattel slave labor for a more modern economy.

1.) Rewarding people for owning slaves is reprehensible.
2.) They wouldn't have given up their slaves.

1.) It beats having to fight a war over it.
2.) Yes, they would have. Every other country did.

We couldn't have.

Other countries managed it. Why not the US?

He wasn't being honest. He wanted to end slavery. That's why the union succeede in the first place, fear of an abolitionist president.

No, they seceded because the South wanted part of the West, while the North wanted the territories to be white dominated. In fact, the North feared that if slavery was abolished in the South, the blacks would all come to the North and "steal jobs." Also, it wouldn't matter if he was being honest if the South could shoot down the 13th Amendment and extend slavery.

Yes, actually. It does make it ok. Slavery is the greatest collective crime next to Genocide.

No matter what slavery is, it still does not justify corporate welfare, protectionist tariffs and monetary inflation.

Slavery was not dieing fast enough and thank reason for centralism.

It could have been resolved like every other country on the face of the planet. And if there's anyone to thank for centralism, it's those who use it to line their own pockets.

Well guess what? It isn't.

It is, Jefferson said so and all the Northern newspapers and literally 90% of the population of the North agreed, up until the attack on Fort Sumter.

I don't see how you could take the man who wrote the Declaration of Independence seriously, ever. Or at least believe a word he said.

Why not?

They left because they were going to have to give up their slaves. They would have implemented different but equal tariffs if they'd won independence. Every government did so at the time. Oly way to effectively raise revenue before income taxes.

Wrong. Lincoln never expressed an interest in abolishing slavery until the Emancipation Proclamation. Neither did most Northern newspapers, most especially the New York Times. And the South almost immediately reduced their tarriffs upon secession.

The Confederacy was nothing more than a plantation dominated aristocracy. There was nothing noble or honorable about it.
The Confederates were racists, slaveholders, and traitors not only to the Union but to mankind.

The Northerners were racists as well, who wanted to ship all of the blacks out back to Africa and keep them from "stealing" the midwest territories and their jobs. They were white supremacists through and through. And the monster that the Union has turned into is in no way deserving of any kind of loyalty.

If he hadn't tried to implement his policies, a socialist revolution would not have been far off. People will only starve for so long. His Keynesian economics, which by the way are not socialist, saved this country from becoming communist.

So instead of having an all out war where it'd be possible to defeat the socialists permanently, we accept a path that makes it easier for proponents of socialism to gain power under the cover of helping out the little guy? I say we should have had an all out war. I'm confident that the socialists would've been stopped, and we might have then listened to Patton when he said we should push the Soviets back behind their borders and told them to stay put.

Why should they have to continue to associate with people who were quite intent on screwing them over? The US seceded from Britain, why should the South have been forced to stay?

If I remember correctly, we were quite content to let them go, until they started shooting at us.

It was achieved elsewhere. It could have been achieved here. No good reason has been given as to why this path could not have been followed instead, other than "No they wouldn't!"

Why do you have so much difficulty understanding the difference between "could" and "would"?

Cuba and North Korea are not our friends. China has radically changed their economy, despite political competition, and is our biggest import market.

Relevance?

And all the slaveholders elsewhere were egalitarians who were just waiting to give up their slaves?

Our slaveholders were worse, yes.

Not necessarily the richest- unions are not "rich", but they still wield quite a bit of strength. And these plantation rich would have been in time replaced by a middle class that would have shunned chattel slave labor for a more modern economy.

So you can provide speculative bullshit about what would or wouldn't have happened, but I can't?

1.) It beats having to fight a war over it.
2.) Yes, they would have. Every other country did.

1) Some people believe that such an atrocious crime against humanity is worth ending by any means, including war. This is a matter of opinion, not fact, and debating it will not result in anyone changing their opinion.

2) Every other country in the world uses the Metric system too, but are Americans eager to jump on the bandwagon?

Other countries managed it. Why not the US?

Because our slaveholding aristocracy was too well-entrenched.

No matter what slavery is, it still does not justify corporate welfare, protectionist tariffs and monetary inflation.

I think of slavery as being a hell of a lot worse than any of those things.

It could have been resolved like every other country on the face of the planet.

Just like Britain could repeal all of its gun laws and privatize its medical industry.

Why should they have to continue to associate with people who were quite intent on screwing them over? The US seceded from Britain, why should the South have been forced to stay?

Because the South had political representation and the American colonies didn't?


Embassies are not military installations used for taxing the surrounding area. Not to mention that Lincoln continued to supply the fort knowing full well it would anger the South.

But it was still Federal property. How does a Fort in the middle of no where tax the surrounding area? Tax ships? Maybe. But I doubt they even tried that after South Carolina attacked Fort Moultrie. The South was grabbing forts well before Lincoln took office. And Lincoln was only providing the people stationed in the Fort with stuff they might need to, y'know, survive.

The only thing Reagan did right is smile. All personality no substance. He committed treason. Cut energy conservation. Cut tax on rich at cost of poor and middle. Tinkle down economics. Started the Republican massive debt cycle. Bought every military equipment that he could even if the pentagon didn't want it.

Kennedy second. Did little. Personality again. Then died young.

I think that I would have to go with JFK. He really didn't do anything that is greatly worthy og being remembered.

The only thing Reagan did right is smile. All personality no substance. He committed treason. Cut energy conservation. Cut tax on rich at cost of poor and middle. Tinkle down economics. Started the Republican massive debt cycle.

To be fair, Reagan also wanted to cut spending to match the cuts in taxes, but the Democratic Congress apparently decided that driving our nation deeply into debt was preferable to giving up their precious pork.

On everything else, yeah, Reagan was pretty much a douchebag.

OK, first Bob Dole (if u dnt know who he is {which u should} then look him up) would be the BEST!!!!greatest, ultimate, perfect president eva!!!!!!
Bob Dole is my hero and the greatest man to ever live and would have been the next president but he knew the people couldn't have handled the awesomeness of Bob Dole.

2nd Al gore won the 2000 election

3rd Communism would have fallen with or without Ronald REgan, he was a f***king actor for God's sake. He is HIGHLY overrated and I heard a lot of people were indicted (or endited whatever the word is for government guys arrested) from his admistaration, like 200 :sniper:

Kennedy

Kennedy, for all of his flaws and fuck-ups, did one thing that makes him one of our greatest Presidents ever.

Executive Order 11110

It would have put the dollar back on a silver standard and ultimately terminated the corrupt and unconstitutional Federal Reserve system. It's probably why he was killed.

2nd Al gore won the 2000 election

No, Al Gore won the popular vote, which doesn't count for jack shit. Read the Constitution sometime.

Ronald REgan SUCKS!!!!!!!!! Have you ever listened to the comeedian George Carlin talk about Ronald Regan.

He wasn't so great ( Regan that is)

I have this Republican friend thats always talking about how Ronald Regan was great and if you don't like him your un american. My democratic friend and I are always talking about how that's NOT true.

:sniper:

No, Al Gore won the popular vote, which doesn't count for jack shit. Read the Constitution sometime.

Yeah but ah Bush , have you actually listened to the dude. Plus there was a lot of other stuff involved. Do youm relize that was the first time the Supreme Court got involved in a presidential election.

Also IF U WIN THE POPULER VOTE OF A STATE YOU WIN THAT STAES ELCTORAL VOTES. For example Gore won California so he got California's 55 electoral votes.

And I have read the constution and I take it and my freedom VERY,VERY seriously.

Also IF U WIN THE POPULER VOTE OF A STATE YOU WIN THAT STAES ELCTORAL VOTES.

Yes, but that's not how it's supposed to work.

If I remember correctly, we were quite content to let them go, until they started shooting at us.

Which they wouldn't have if Lincoln had withdrawn from Fort Sumter.

Why do you have so much difficulty understanding the difference between "could" and "would"?

I don't, but you haven't addressed why it would be so insurmountably difficult to follow what virtually every other country in the Western Hemisphere did.

Relevance?

You implied that international pressure is impotent. In actual fact, it does work in conditions where nations have cordial relations.

Our slaveholders were worse, yes.

Slaveholders have their own self-interest. If they could have their self-interest satisfied instead of provoking a war in one case, it is possible to do it again.

So you can provide speculative bullshit about what would or wouldn't have happened, but I can't?

If you'll give me a specific reason why the US would be so incredibly different from nigh every other country on the Western Hemisphere, I'd gladly take your speculative theory into account.

1) Some people believe that such an atrocious crime against humanity is worth ending by any means, including war. This is a matter of opinion, not fact, and debating it will not result in anyone changing their opinion.

Fair enough. But, reasonably, losing one's temporal existence is worse than losing part of the ability to apply said existence as one wishes.

2) Every other country in the world uses the Metric system too, but are Americans eager to jump on the bandwagon?

Actually, in almost every class that used mathematics, we used metric more often than not. And I would say that's a good thing, seeing as how I have no idea what exactly an "acre" is.

Because our slaveholding aristocracy was too well-entrenched.

Ah, thank you! But the Hispanic nations had enslaved Indians before Britain's arrival in North America, and the Anglo-Saxon culture had the benefit thinkers who promoted the rights of man. But in these nations slavery was ended peacefully, as it was in Britain's other colonies. Why would America be different?

I think of slavery as being a hell of a lot worse than any of those things.

The tarriff money was used to help the railroads kill Indians and steal their land. I think that's definitely a lot worse than slavery (and it's a reason why the Cherokee and other Indians fought against Lincoln on the side of the Confederacy.)

Just like Britain could repeal all of its gun laws and privatize its medical industry.

I can't think of any countries that have done anything like this; the 20th century has been a march towards greater centralization, unfortunately. But slavery has practically disappeared from the face of the earth, when it used to be much more entrenched.

Because the South had political representation and the American colonies didn't?

The Northern dominance of the arms of government made Southern political representation only a bit better than the "virtual representation" the colonies "enjoyed" under Britain.

But it was still Federal property. How does a Fort in the middle of no where tax the surrounding area? Tax ships? Maybe. But I doubt they even tried that after South Carolina attacked Fort Moultrie. The South was grabbing forts well before Lincoln took office. And Lincoln was only providing the people stationed in the Fort with stuff they might need to, y'know, survive.

It was used to collect customs duties from ships. And if Lincoln had really cared for those soldiers, he might have transported them away so they wouldn't, y'know, be shot at.

Ronald Reagan, that senile nutter with alzheimers. That could've easily turned out a lot worse than it did.

The Northern dominance of the arms of government made Southern political representation only a bit better than the "virtual representation" the colonies "enjoyed" under Britain.

If the North had so much power, why was slavery still legal in the South? The fact is that the South spent almost all of it's political energies on keeping slavery legal and tariffs were, at the most, secondary.

It was used to collect customs duties from ships. And if Lincoln had really cared for those soldiers, he might have transported them away so they wouldn't, y'know, be shot at.

Still doesn't change the fact that the South started it pretty much without a reason.

Actually, in almost every class that used mathematics, we used metric more often than not. And I would say that's a good thing, seeing as how I have no idea what exactly an "acre" is.


The area an ox can plow in a day.

Which they wouldn't have if Lincoln had withdrawn from Fort Sumter.

Why the hell should he have withdrawn from it? The Federal government has the right to keep troops in its own damn forts.

I don't, but you haven't addressed why it would be so insurmountably difficult to follow what virtually every other country in the Western Hemisphere did.

I've already fucking explained this to you. It wasn't a matter of difficulty, it was a matter of willingness. The reason why the Southern states declared independence in the first place was because they were afraid that Lincoln would try to abolish slavery.

You implied that international pressure is impotent. In actual fact, it does work in conditions where nations have cordial relations.

O RLY?

Slaveholders have their own self-interest. If they could have their self-interest satisfied instead of provoking a war in one case, it is possible to do it again.

Owning slaves was what satisfied their self-interest, bonehead.

If you'll give me a specific reason why the US would be so incredibly different from nigh every other country on the Western Hemisphere, I'd gladly take your speculative theory into account.

Well, for one thing, our Constitution did not originally allow the Federal government to outlaw slavery, and it wasn't going to change in that regard as long as most of the slave states remained in the Union. For another, the economies of the Southern states were almost completely dependent on slave labor, so they never would have outlawed it themselves (whereas the other nations that outlawed slavery were nowhere near as dependent on it).

Fair enough. But, reasonably, losing one's temporal existence is worse than losing part of the ability to apply said existence as one wishes.

Existence without freedom is worthless to some people.

Actually, in almost every class that used mathematics, we used metric more often than not. And I would say that's a good thing, seeing as how I have no idea what exactly an "acre" is.

Class? How about the real world? Our weathermen continue to give us daily temperatures in Fahrenheit, Mapquest gives us directions in miles, the price of gasoline is given per gallon, and if you look at the net weight of anything that you find in a supermarket, it's in ounces.

Ah, thank you! But the Hispanic nations had enslaved Indians before Britain's arrival in North America, and the Anglo-Saxon culture had the benefit thinkers who promoted the rights of man. But in these nations slavery was ended peacefully, as it was in Britain's other colonies. Why would America be different?

*is tired of constantly answering this question over and over*

Because of Constitutional Federalism and the South's depencence on slave labor.

The tarriff money was used to help the railroads kill Indians and steal their land. I think that's definitely a lot worse than slavery (and it's a reason why the Cherokee and other Indians fought against Lincoln on the side of the Confederacy.)

The manner in which the tariff money is spent does not make the tariffs themselves evil.

Also, the number of slaves who were freed by the war was a hell of a lot bigger than the number of Native Americans who were killed.

I can't think of any countries that have done anything like this

Well, there was the collapse of the Soviet Union...

The Northern dominance of the arms of government made Southern political representation only a bit better than the "virtual representation" the colonies "enjoyed" under Britain.

Northern dominance? A series of compromises ensured that slave states and free states would be entitled to equal representation in the Senate.

FDR. The New Deal didn't end the depression. WWII ended it.

The only good thing he did was create the FDIC.

But Imperialism is fun!

An important part of judging historical figures is putting them in the context of their era. If you fail to do so, you are getting a dishonest view of the person.

While today his actions would be condemned as Imperialism, that wasn't the case in the early 20th century. It was an era where pretty much every independent nation with any power was practicing imperialism. See Britain, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Russia, Japan, etc.

But it still could have been done peacefully, without the horrific bloodshed that the Civil War had. Was it really worth having hundreds of thousands of people die over?



Because they'd vote Republican. (And at the Hampton Roads "Peace" Conference, his only condition was that the South rejoin the Union. Slavery was not something important to him.)
Part of his reconstruction plan was the forced ratification of the 13th and 14th ammendments. (The 15th ammendment was later added by Johnson in his plan)

Still enough to level every major city in the US. No one wins in nuclear war.
Actually, the Soviets didn't have the missile systems to hit US cities. THey could've leveled Western Europe though.

I'm not saying that would be a good thing. I'm just trying to add in some military facts here.

The US could've easily hit the USSR though since we already had Polaris deployed on 6 or 7 George Washington and Ethan Allen class SSBNs.

People are hating on the Roosevelts and Lincoln?

That's just plain and simple stupid, uninformed blather.

People like to make stupid "shock" choices. I assume for attention.

Oh, and I am going with Millard Filmore, just for the hell of it. :)

FDR. The New Deal didn't end the depression. WWII ended it.

The only good thing he did was create the FDIC.

Well, to be fair, his policies DID lessen the severity of the depression; the GDP went up and unemployment went down, though WW2 was indeed what finally got things back to normal.

FDR. The New Deal didn't fix the depression, and he was too old and weak to be effective in his fourth term. He should have known when to stop.

You know who's underrated? Jimmy Polk. He kicked ass. Mexican ass, to be exact.

FDR is the most over-rated president ever. He bent America over and fucked the country in the ass, hard, all the while sucking up to and ensuring that Uncle Joe Stalin got what he wanted. He raised taxes as high as 95 percent, hired known KGB agents (Harry Hopkins), allowed labor unions to grow in militancy and power bringing the economy into another recession in 1937...and let's not get started on the New Deal, or Lenin-Lease, either.

He was a Communist bastard who didn't die nearly soon enough, in short.

Hrm.

Most overrated president? I initially thought "Bush", and voted 'other'.

Then I saw the option for Ronald Reagan.

:(

Though if it's 'least favorite', I pick James Buchanan.

Hrm.

Most overrated president? I initially thought "Bush", and voted 'other'.

Then I saw the option for Ronald Reagan.

:(

Though if it's 'least favorite', I pick James Buchanan.

Bush overrated? the media hates him. the media has to like someone a lot for them to become overrated. also everyone hated reagan during his day. just ask my old ex-liberal parents. now people feel bad because he's dead.

you know who i really hate? that guy who came after Lincoln. He was a major butthead (or asshole, if butthead is too juvenile) and was the first to give the republicans a bad name. damn democrat sympathizer. Now i see where hanging out with democrats has gotten us.


just kidding!

But every other country in the Western hemisphere did it [end slavery] peacefully.

You'll forgive me for not sorting through 9 pages to work out if someone else has already pointed this out, but...

The Haitians (who, last time I checked, live in a Western Hemisphere country) would surely be stunned to discover that they managed to end slavery 'peacefully' rather than through the only successful slave rebellion in the Western Hemisphere.

And that's without addressing the issue of unsuccessful slave rebellions in several other nations and territories.

And that's without addressing the issue of unsuccessful slave rebellions in several other nations and territories.

I am Spartacus.

He was a Communist bastard who didn't die nearly soon enough, in short.

Quoted for mother fucking truth.

Overrated? I call it a tie between Reagan and JFK. One is the patron saint of the conservative boomers, the other is the messiah of the liberal boomers.

The religious language I used is entirely intentional on my part, because the devotion of their respective political sects for these two men borders on religious. And neither of them deserve it. They were both very flawed men who promoted very flawed policies. They also had some successes, but in my book that's not enough reason to elevate them to quasi-divinities.

FDR is far more overrated than JFK.

Lincoln, FDR and Reagan. The latter is somehow venerated as some paragon of right-wing economics. He was nothing of the sort.

Lincoln, FDR and Reagan. The latter is somehow venerated as some paragon of right-wing economics. He was nothing of the sort.

Europa Maxima, right as often is the case. :cool:

But I am surprised that more people didn't choose Clinton. Perhaps I should not be surprised though. This forum is WELL to the Left of the average voter in the US and every other country represented here.

Bush overrated? the media hates him. the media has to like someone a lot for them to become overrated. also everyone hated reagan during his day. just ask my old ex-liberal parents. now people feel bad because he's dead.

Yeah, and that's why I regret my initial choice.

Europa Maxima, right as often is the case. :cool:

But I am surprised that more people didn't choose Clinton. Perhaps I should not be surprised though. This forum is WELL to the Left of the average voter in the US and every other country represented here.
I like him - he cut spending, reformed the welfare system, and I think his impeachment was unfair. He was by no means an exemplar human being, but he was better than most presidents.

I like him - he cut spending, reformed the welfare system, and I think his impeachment was unfair. He was by no means an exemplar human being, but he was better than most presidents.

Of course it isn't so difficult to cut spending during peacetime (all the previous presidents mentioned on this arbitrary list, were presidents during the civil war, the second world war, and the cold war). I will always remember Clinton (and Tomiichi Murayama) for giving North Korea the benefit of the doubt when it deserved no such thing.

The naysayers were dismissed (in this country anyway) as being nationalist war-mongers, and yet, as one can see now, we were right all along.

To be fair, Reagan also wanted to cut spending to match the cuts in taxes, but the Democratic Congress apparently decided that driving our nation deeply into debt was preferable to giving up their precious pork.

On everything else, yeah, Reagan was pretty much a douchebag.

What's the excuse for his apostles--Bush II and Bush I---being the biggest and third biggest debtors.? Reagan did have the veto. He was the one that wanted the navy built twice as large as the pentagon requested. Buying several planes the pentagon didn't want. etc.

I would really like to have a "conservative" define that term as it applies to the last three "conservative" presidents.

you know who i really hate? that guy who came after Lincoln. He was a major butthead (or asshole, if butthead is too juvenile) and was the first to give the republicans a bad name. damn democrat sympathizer. Now i see where hanging out with democrats has gotten us.


just kidding!

Actually Andrew Johnson (Lincoln's VP and successor) was not a Republican. He was a Democrat. Lincoln selected him as his VP in hopes of unifying the nation since he saw the Civil War was drawing to a close.

I like him - he cut spending, reformed the welfare system, and I think his impeachment was unfair. He was by no means an exemplar human being, but he was better than most presidents.

You mean like *gasp* actually managing to have a surplus in the budget?

Teddy Roosevelt. He was a murderous, violent twit who waged a war for economic profit and made a mockery of the White House. His Progressivism hardly makes up for his impirialism.

My kind of guy! :sniper:

[QUOTE=Greill;12487184]Who do you feel is the most overrated president?

I understand why a lot of people feel Reagan was over rated; poor foreign policy in the mid-east, may be the cause of our problems today, trickle down didn't work for everyone, but I know I benefited from it! I personally never saw an extra nickel from Clinton's fiscal policy, and since most of us vote with our wallets, I never voted for him, and feel his popularity was just that, he was well liked if not infatuated by many people.

This forum is WELL to the Left of the average voter in the US and every other country represented here.

Pishposh. Poppycock, even.

I understand why a lot of people feel Reagan was over rated; poor foreign policy in the mid-east, may be the cause of our problems today, trickle down didn't work for everyone, but I know I benefited from it! I personally never saw an extra nickel from Clinton's fiscal policy, and since most of us vote with our wallets, I never voted for him, and feel his popularity was just that, he was well liked if not infatuated by many people.

You seem to be forgetting openly acknowledging and supporting terrorist activities in Latin America, and being directly responsible for several thousand civilian deaths because of it. He was, by and large, about as close to a murderer as one can get without actually committing the act in person.

Well I believe Reagan. My reasons for this are thus. When ever I have read about a great moment about him it has always been about the Air traffic controllers strike. To me that reakes of someone who only got one thing right and that is the one moment that everyone else clings to.

Also there is another test of any president and his capabilities. Who from the media goes to ask his opinion after he finished office. No one did after he left office, because I believe that no one took him seriously as a president so no one valued his opinion.

Jackson, for refusing to even do his goddamn job.

What's the excuse for his apostles--Bush II and Bush I---being the biggest and third biggest debtors.?

Bush I: Democrat-controlled Congress
Bush II: Having the brain of a gerbil.

Jackson, for refusing to even do his goddamn job.

You mean refusing to act as a rubber stamp for a corrupt Congress?

Notorious international terrorist and mass murderer Ronald Reagan.

Notorious international terrorist and mass murderer Ronald Reagan.

i have never been able to figure out why anyone likes him at all. but he consistently ranks just behind lincoln as "greatest president evah!" in polls of the public. the mind, she boggles.

OK, every country BUT Haiti. Satisfied?

Yeah. :D

Bush I: Democrat-controlled Congress
Bush II: Having the brain of a gerbil.


As I remember all of the presidents from FDR to Carter had Democratic congresses and their grand total debt (including WW2, Korea, and Nam, the space program, the interstate highway system) was less than the debt for Reagan alone.

You seem to be forgetting openly acknowledging and supporting terrorist activities in Latin America, and being directly responsible for several thousand civilian deaths because of it. He was, by and large, about as close to a murderer as one can get without actually committing the act in person.

Every President has blood on his hands, every single one of them.

Notorious international terrorist and mass murderer Ronald Reagan.

Reagan supported the Contra's in Nicaragua, and that makes him an international terrorist? But he also supported the government in El Salvador and that made him a human rights violator for supporting a repressive regime...Damn, no way to win that one!

Reagan supported the Contra's in Nicaragua, and that makes him an international terrorist? But he also supported the government in El Salvador and that made him a human rights violator for supporting a repressive regime...Damn, no way to win that one!

Reagan committed treason. He sold arms to the enemy. How much more treasonous can you get?

Then he took the money and gave it to a group that Congress specifically said not to give money to. The Constitution gives all money matters to the Congress. Funding the Contras was a "High Crime". The only reasons he wasn't impeached and tried for treason is he had charisma. The people liked his smile. And he had Alzheimer's. Since this came out at the end of his term, it didn't seem worth it to put him on trial and let the world know we were being led by a person that was mentally incompetent.

Who do you feel is the most overrated president?

I would say Abraham Lincoln. He was an outright racist, with his plans for shipping blacks to Africa (or otherwise out of America), his support for Black Laws that kept free blacks out of states such as his own Illinois and the territories, his corporate welfare schemes for railroads, steamboats and canals, and other expansions of government, his suppression of civil liberties, and his advocacy of total war (e.g. Shenandoah Valley, Sherman's March Through Georgia.)
As a foreigner on the issue of overrated POTUSes, I don't feel any are. But I would agree with you...going by modern times at least, Mr. Lincoln would be a racist, but for his time, he was seen as a progressive, and at the very least he did bring the USA one step closer to equality.

most over rated president?

all of them.

and any other kind of head of state of any other kind of hierarchy.

the good ones are few and far between, but even they, well it's just like the celebrity thing, anyone that much in the public eye is invariably going to be over rated. i don't see any way that can be helped or avoided.

=^^=
.../\...

Every President has blood on his hands, every single one of them.

Even Grover Cleveland?

We could have (and should have) easily destroyed the missile sites. Moreover, at the time of the CMC, our nuclear arsennel outnumbered that of the Soviets by 8 to 1.

Bollocks.

Attacking a Cuban missle site would have been as declaration of war, and the world would now be a smoking crater.
If you really think that course of action would have led to anything but open warfare, you are truly misinformed, and rather ignorant in regards to history.

Regardless of how many weapons they had, it would have been plenty.

Who do you feel is the most overrated president?

I would say Abraham Lincoln. He was an outright racist, with his plans for shipping blacks to Africa (or otherwise out of America), his support for Black Laws that kept free blacks out of states such as his own Illinois and the territories, his corporate welfare schemes for railroads, steamboats and canals, and other expansions of government, his suppression of civil liberties, and his advocacy of total war (e.g. Shenandoah Valley, Sherman's March Through Georgia.)

I'd have to say George W. Bush. Yes, most people think he's a buffoon, or just plain evil. But a third of the country still thinks he's doing a good job. That's a larger reality gap than Lincoln, with all the faults you've mentioned, being considered one of the top two.

Either that, or Reagan. The guy who used to rush to the helicopter and then pretend he couldn't hear reporters because of the noise who gets called "the Great Communicator." The guy who apologized for selling weapons to our enemies by saying "I don't feel like I did it, but I did."

Reagan committed treason. He sold arms to the enemy. How much more treasonous can you get?

Then he took the money and gave it to a group that Congress specifically said not to give money to. The Constitution gives all money matters to the Congress. Funding the Contras was a "High Crime". The only reasons he wasn't impeached and tried for treason is he had charisma. The people liked his smile. And he had Alzheimer's. Since this came out at the end of his term, it didn't seem worth it to put him on trial and let the world know we were being led by a person that was mentally incompetent.

Our face is a bit red over that one now, huh?

I'd have to say George W. Bush.

The people of Afghanistan might disagree with you on that, as well as the Iraqis who toppled the statue of Saddam...

The people of Afghanistan might disagree with you on that, as well as the Iraqis who toppled the statue of Saddam...

And more Iraqis have died per year under the US than under Saddam......

[QUOTE=Good Lifes;12506013]Reagan committed treason. He sold arms to the enemy. How much more treasonous can you get?

The enemy of my enemy- I'll never fault any President for his/her actions when it comes to things that have to go 'Boom' in the dark of night. A covert military action is no longer covert when it's discussed by Congress and within days written about in the Washington Post, NY Times...

Even Grover Cleveland?

I just checked, he sent troops to Chicago in 1883 (?) to squelch a railroad workers strike. I don't think they sat around and played cards....

Every President has blood on his hands, every single one of them.

Yes, but very few of them are praised as "the greatest President" as much as Reagan, more people acknowledge the blood on other's hands moreso than people do on Reagan's.

Edit: Also, there is the whole thing about "Toppling the Soviet Union" that I cannot even begin to fathom how he did. Not only this, but those who say he did so, have yet to even give me a reason why or how he was able to do this monumental feat, practically by himself. What I DO know is that the Soviet Union crumbled due to internal political pressures and economic instability... neither of which had anything to do with Reagan.

No other county in the Western Hemisphere depended on slavery as much as the US.
And Haiti didn't end slavery peacefully so, meh.

You know his opinion changed right? By the time of his last state of the union, he was in favor of blacks getting the right to vote.

Oh yeah, and definitely Teddy.

Reagan is a close second, but I doubt anyone will give two shits about him once all the baby boomers are dead though.

The British Empire?
It was one of our most profitable activities.

Ilaer

Yes, but very few of them are praised as "the greatest President" as much as Reagan, more people acknowledge the blood on other's hands more so than people do on Reagan's.

Edit: Also, there is the whole thing about "Toppling the Soviet Union" that I cannot even begin to fathom how he did. Not only this, but those who say he did so, have yet to even give me a reason why or how he was able to do this monumental feat, practically by himself. What I DO know is that the Soviet Union crumbled due to internal political pressures and economic instability... neither of which had anything to do with Reagan.

I won't say the greatest, but also not the most overrated either- As far as "Toppling the Soviet Union", in my opinion, even though it put this country in debt, it was the Reagen era that spent more money on defense that the Soviets tried to keep up with that caused the economic instability.

[QUOTE=Good Lifes;12506013]Reagan committed treason. He sold arms to the enemy. How much more treasonous can you get?

The enemy of my enemy- I'll never fault any President for his/her actions when it comes to things that have to go 'Boom' in the dark of night. A covert military action is no longer covert when it's discussed by Congress and within days written about in the Washington Post, NY Times...

The enemy of our enemy?

He sold arms to Iran who had held our people for 444 days. At the time Iraq was our friend. Iran was our enemy.

He gave the money to the Contras before it became public. Congress had specifically not funded that action. The one power that is totally left to Congress is the spending of money. This was a High Crime against the United States.

Reagan committed treason. He sold arms to the enemy. How much more treasonous can you get?

So did Roosevelt. Ever heard of Lend-Lease?

So did Roosevelt. Ever heard of Lend-Lease?

Because the Sandinistas were as dangerous as Hitler?

Because the Sandinistas were as dangerous as Hitler?

Irrelevant. I was only pointing out that Reagan wasn't the only president to sell arms to enemies of the United States.

I was only pointing out that Reagan wasn't the only president to sell arms to enemies of the United States.

The Soviet Union wasn't really an enemy at the time.

Edit: And Lend-Lease was approved by Congress, and was perfectly legal.

The people of Afghanistan might disagree with you on that, as well as the Iraqis who toppled the statue of Saddam...

You live in a different universe than the rest of us don't you?

The afghanistans are getting overrun by Taliban fighters from Pakistan because our troops are stuck in Iraq dealing with insurgents from every corner of the middle east.

Saddam wrongfully arrested and tortured innocent civilians.

We never did that!

Saddam kept Iraq stable.

We definately aren't doing that.

Saddam was put in power by...______________

Saddam was captured swiftly and imprisoned by...______________

Saddam caused a horrific war with Iranians.

Stay tuned...

Jfk

I meant to vote other and say Kennedy, but I accidently voted pudding.

I meant to vote other and say Kennedy, but I accidently voted pudding.

I liked Kennedy. :(

So did Roosevelt. Ever heard of Lend-Lease?

Lend-Lease was to the allied powers not the axis powers. We weren't involved in the war at that point, but we weren't selling to the enemy. UK, France, and Russia were allies. They were not going to be our enemy when or if we entered the war.

Iran was the enemy.

FDR ...

He wanted nothing more to be a Facsist dictator. Overall, his policies only held America down during the great depression (the numbers speak for themselves) and he expanded the Federal governments powers to ludicris amounts while trying to get his way at any cost including the subversion of the U.S. Consitution and other State and Federal laws.

Oh, no, you didn't just trash Tarja Halonen!

Tarja Halonen is awesome!

I think JFK is pretty overrated as far as US presidents go. He didn't do much of anything- especially for domestic policy.

Tarja Halonen is awesome!

I think JFK is pretty overrated as far as US presidents go. He didn't do much of anything- especially for domestic policy.

Pushing the bill of rights and NASA much?

He wanted nothing more to be a Facsist dictator. Overall, his policies only held America down during the great depression (the numbers speak for themselves) and he expanded the Federal governments powers to ludicris amounts while trying to get his way at any cost including the subversion of the U.S. Consitution and other State and Federal laws.

Because Hoover was doing so much better.

Why is it socialism = facism in the eys of conservatives? While yes I disagreed with him trying to stack the supreme court, he brought about grand revisions in the United States bringing work to millions. I never realized Welfare was so ebil.

The man also had Polio, but never let it get to him. Even though he has been accused of being a racist that's worth a round of applause in itself.

FDR ...

He wanted nothing more to be a Facsist dictator. Overall, his policies only held America down during the great depression (the numbers speak for themselves) and he expanded the Federal governments powers to ludicris amounts while trying to get his way at any cost including the subversion of the U.S. Consitution and other State and Federal laws.

First, a fascist is a super conservative not a liberal.

He did the same thing that Reagan and Bush and Bush have done to keep us out of depression. He poured money into the economy. The difference is the US was in the black and had the money to put in under FDR. (until WW2 debt) Today we borrow the money which just delays the depression until the bills come due. When will that be? Who knows? Depends on which nation calls in the debt first. Probably as a weapon of policy.

FDR ...

He wanted nothing more to be a Facsist dictator. Overall, his policies only held America down during the great depression (the numbers speak for themselves) and he expanded the Federal governments powers to ludicris amounts while trying to get his way at any cost including the subversion of the U.S. Consitution and other State and Federal laws.

Haha, no.

Because Hoover was doing so much better.

Why is it socialism = facism in the eys of conservatives? While yes I disagreed with him trying to stack the supreme court, he brought about grand revisions in the United States bringing work to millions. I never realized Welfare was so ebil.

The man also had Polio, but never let it get to him. Even though he has been accused of being a racist that's worth a round of applause in itself.

I'm not conservative and he was a Facsist. He wanted more than just control over the economy, he wanted control over everything.

What jobs would you be refering to? Even in the 40's unemployment was at 17.2%. During the build up for War after Pearl Harbor unemployment was still never lower than 9.9%. There was PLENTY of time for these "Grand Revisions" to do their work. Per capita GDP was lower in 1939 than in 1929 ($847 and $857, respectively), as were personal consumption expenditures ($67.6 billion vs. $78.9 billion), according to Census Bureau data. Net private investment was minus $3.1 billion from 1930 through 1940. And of course we can't forget the NIRA which made it illegal to increase output or cut prices.

Social Security was his attempt to fix problems that he himself exacerbated. And to make things worse, he wanted to fund this by creating a Payroll Tax, even though this would be regressive by taking a higher percentage of earnings of lower-income people than higher-income. His reasoning was because a payroll tax made it seem like a self-financing insurance plan, thus making it harder to repeal by Congress or the Supreme Court should either side decide to do so. This raised the cost of employment and manpower thus forcing more employers to use machines to the lower cost due to the lack of the right to lower wages and prices as aforementioned by the NIRA. The employment of machines instead of men caused more unemployment. NRA (the follow up agency to the INRA) codes denied individuals the right to enter business of their choosing. Compulsory unionism denied individuals the right to work without joining a union. Americans gave up these liberties, and more, without getting out of the Great Depression as Roosevelt had promised. Only the outbreak of WWII did that, not FDR. He also issued 3,728 executive orders which is more than all other presidents after him combined. That only goes to show his increasing impaitence with American Democracy.

Ohh and he is the reason Presidents are only allowed two terms in office.

Out of the choices, I'd say Clinton.
Out of all of the presidents, I'd say JFK.

JFK

Seriously,whats the big deal with this guy?

Wondering if there's any life left in this thread? :mp5:

Reagan.

Woohoo, a gravedig for my thread!

You might want to cite your sources when posting inflammatory claims like that, man.

You mean facts?

You mean facts?

Like this fact?

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."

This is from his fourth debate with Stephen F. Douglas. If this isn't racist...

Adenauer! *nods*

Who do you feel is the most overrated president?
Bah, what about William Henry Harrison? :D

I'll cast my vote in this thread for John Fucking* Kennedy - after all, the only reason he's not just a footnote in the history books (as "first Catholic President") is that he got his head blown off by some wacko(s?) in Dallas in 1963.

Reagan is getting up there, though, but that doesn't have to do with his Administration suckes as much as it does the Republican Party taking a mediocre President and running a PR campaign to try to get the public to put him on the same podium that George Washington, Abraham Lincoln et. al. stand on...

* - Technically, the middle name is Fitzgerald, but given all his affairs, Fucking fits his personality much better.

Ronald Reagan......

I'm not conservative and he was a Facsist. He wanted more than just control over the economy, he wanted control over everything.

What jobs would you be refering to? Even in the 40's unemployment was at 17.2%. During the build up for War after Pearl Harbor unemployment was still never lower than 9.9%. There was PLENTY of time for these "Grand Revisions" to do their work. Per capita GDP was lower in 1939 than in 1929 ($847 and $857, respectively), as were personal consumption expenditures ($67.6 billion vs. $78.9 billion), according to Census Bureau data. Net private investment was minus $3.1 billion from 1930 through 1940. And of course we can't forget the NIRA which made it illegal to increase output or cut prices.

Social Security was his attempt to fix problems that he himself exacerbated. And to make things worse, he wanted to fund this by creating a Payroll Tax, even though this would be regressive by taking a higher percentage of earnings of lower-income people than higher-income. His reasoning was because a payroll tax made it seem like a self-financing insurance plan, thus making it harder to repeal by Congress or the Supreme Court should either side decide to do so. This raised the cost of employment and manpower thus forcing more employers to use machines to the lower cost due to the lack of the right to lower wages and prices as aforementioned by the NIRA. The employment of machines instead of men caused more unemployment. NRA (the follow up agency to the INRA) codes denied individuals the right to enter business of their choosing. Compulsory unionism denied individuals the right to work without joining a union. Americans gave up these liberties, and more, without getting out of the Great Depression as Roosevelt had promised. Only the outbreak of WWII did that, not FDR. He also issued 3,728 executive orders which is more than all other presidents after him combined. That only goes to show his increasing impaitence with American Democracy.

Ohh and he is the reason Presidents are only allowed two terms in office.

. . .So fascism equals centralized management of intractable economic problems plus more than 8 years in office?

That would mean Germany didn't become fascist until about 1941.

You mean facts?

:rolleyes: Either way, cite your sources.

(sees Greill's post)

Ok.