Ruthless4christ
New member
wow this thread has grown really fast!
Poll: Who has been the WORST President in United States History?
- Thread starter LanceOregon
- Start date
- Status
Shane Tuttle
Staff
IIRC, we placed an embargo on Japan. Well, with the dirty deeds Japan was performing they had the choice to take option #1 didn't they? The fact of the matter wasn't that they didn't have a choice but to attack. They had the chance to do the right thing or the wrong thing.
Heck, dresden. IIRC, you're against the war in Iraq. Isn't this a parallel to some degree in some protestors eyes? Japan gets a pass for bullying us because we don't provide oil to them yet the U.S. gets hammered for doing the same to the middle east?
So, you're justifiying bad behavior with an example of other bad behavior?
Divemedic, I can't argue with your point of the national debt. Facts are facts. However, I think if the accusation should fly, the details of where and how the money was borrowed and spent should be taken into account. I don't know much was invested in the military during Carter's years, but Reagan spent quite a bit on defense. When Clinton came riding in, he chopped the military down by swinging a bat to the knees. Granted, our politicians on the Republican side didn't set forth a successful immediate plan on paying back the debt. However, I think portions of the deficit was justified.
OK, I'll agree with that. But Gorbachev ended it because Reagan held Gorby's head in a vise and Thatcher turned the crank.....sloooowwwlly.
Ruthless4christ
New member
um our actians in the middle east took place after the war was rolling. OUr actians against japan took place before the war.
Alot of worse betrayels have taken place in history.
Um all I was saying was that FDR betrayed us...by allowing the japanese to attack us so he could unter us into the war. Lots of witnesses and written correspondence has been recorded on this. google it, or read the half dozen books written on it.
Shane Tuttle
Staff
What I'm saying is that it's hypocritical to think that it was justified that Japan attacked us yet we're hammered for attacking the middle east. Granted, it isn't exactly the same parallel. I mean this as an earnest opinion, not an attack to call you a hypocrit.
As bad as FDR was as our president IMO, I don't think he just let Pearl Harbor happen. The key difference is this: You know by laws of probability that you have a good chance of being a victim of a crime if you live in downtown Chicago. That doesn't mean that since you chose to live in that area you are allowing yourself to be mugged.
Did the bullseye on your belly finally get washed off? Or did your hair finally grow back over it?
As bad as FDR was as our president IMO, I don't think he just let Pearl Harbor happen. The key difference is this: You know by laws of probability that you have a good chance of being a victim of a crime if you live in downtown Chicago. That doesn't mean that since you chose to live in that area you are allowing yourself to be mugged.
Did the bullseye on your belly finally get washed off? Or did your hair finally grow back over it?
copenhagen
New member
Yup. I think I put this out there on the 1st of 2nd page...
copenhagen
New member
I got Woodrow Wilson on the 14th Post:
This was my post:
This was my post:
copenhagen
New member
Yup, he really set the groundwork for Socialism (which is being perverted into social control in my opinion) in this country.
I only considered presidents I've been alive and cognicent for as I'm no historian and I'd rather not just parrot somebody else's vitriol (though I confess I'm facinated at the points of view being expressed regarding Lincoln, FDR and a couple of others).
Too young to make anything but second-hand comments about Ford and Carter.
I've never quite understood why so many republicans want to claim to be the next Reagan. So many of the things he did had awful long-term consequences.
He made some very poor decisions about Iran and Afganistan regarding money, weapons, and politics.
Trickle-down economics is just about the most ridiculous idea I've ever heard of. "Let's give a lot to a few and trust them to pass out enough for everybody else". Not exactly an idea that will cause the middle-class to thrive.
The War on Drugs really hasn't had the results we've been looking for. I'm not pro-drug or anything, but the amount of people we have locked up on drug-related makes me think it's not something to place a check by in the "Win" category for Reagan. I'm not sure how much of this to blame on Reagan though, as policies such as "3 Strikes and You're Out" have no doubt exacerbated the situation.
Bush Sr was just kind of there. Iraq and puking on the Japanese Prime Minister really sums him up I think.
Not sure about Clinton - did some good and some bad. NAFTA was a real kick in the balls for Michigan, not sure about the country as a whole though. Would have been interesting to see what he could have done if his 2nd term hadn't been so buggered up.
Bush Jr has some pretty glaring black eyes. My blood pressure ticks up a little bit when people rail against Clinton lying in the oval office with nary a mention of Iraq 2 and WMDs. How he ducked impeachment I'll never know (Ok, I know, he had a friendly Congress). Gitmo will be viewed as the modern incarnation of Japanese Internment camps. God knows what kind of human rights abuses are going to pop up. He'll be blamed for the fumbled economy even though it's sounding more and more like he just caught the hot potato. Only saving grace he'll have is if the long shot comes through and Iraq not only becomes a beacon of Middle Eastern democracy but also dominoes the whole region into a more socially progress, Western friendly series of governments.
Digressing a bit, somebody in an earlier post mentioned about why the Middle East hated us. I'm under the impression it's equal mixtures of:
1) Our support of Israel
2) Our history of meddling in their affairs
3) Because we make a great badguy to distract the common man from how badly their life sucks.
Too young to make anything but second-hand comments about Ford and Carter.
I've never quite understood why so many republicans want to claim to be the next Reagan. So many of the things he did had awful long-term consequences.
He made some very poor decisions about Iran and Afganistan regarding money, weapons, and politics.
Trickle-down economics is just about the most ridiculous idea I've ever heard of. "Let's give a lot to a few and trust them to pass out enough for everybody else". Not exactly an idea that will cause the middle-class to thrive.
The War on Drugs really hasn't had the results we've been looking for. I'm not pro-drug or anything, but the amount of people we have locked up on drug-related makes me think it's not something to place a check by in the "Win" category for Reagan. I'm not sure how much of this to blame on Reagan though, as policies such as "3 Strikes and You're Out" have no doubt exacerbated the situation.
Bush Sr was just kind of there. Iraq and puking on the Japanese Prime Minister really sums him up I think.
Not sure about Clinton - did some good and some bad. NAFTA was a real kick in the balls for Michigan, not sure about the country as a whole though. Would have been interesting to see what he could have done if his 2nd term hadn't been so buggered up.
Bush Jr has some pretty glaring black eyes. My blood pressure ticks up a little bit when people rail against Clinton lying in the oval office with nary a mention of Iraq 2 and WMDs. How he ducked impeachment I'll never know (Ok, I know, he had a friendly Congress). Gitmo will be viewed as the modern incarnation of Japanese Internment camps. God knows what kind of human rights abuses are going to pop up. He'll be blamed for the fumbled economy even though it's sounding more and more like he just caught the hot potato. Only saving grace he'll have is if the long shot comes through and Iraq not only becomes a beacon of Middle Eastern democracy but also dominoes the whole region into a more socially progress, Western friendly series of governments.
Digressing a bit, somebody in an earlier post mentioned about why the Middle East hated us. I'm under the impression it's equal mixtures of:
1) Our support of Israel
2) Our history of meddling in their affairs
3) Because we make a great badguy to distract the common man from how badly their life sucks.
Retiredatforty
New member
GWB Hands Down
It sounds like the easy road, I know. Not enough time and distance, etc. But can you name anything the man has done right?
Warren Harding is generally put at the bottom of the compiled lists by historians, but I honestly believe GW Bush will bump him up. Bumbling the war, Katrina, energy dependence, the runaway deficit, Patriot Act, and on and on. He may well be regarded as the man who presided over our ultimate undoing.
It sounds like the easy road, I know. Not enough time and distance, etc. But can you name anything the man has done right?
Warren Harding is generally put at the bottom of the compiled lists by historians, but I honestly believe GW Bush will bump him up. Bumbling the war, Katrina, energy dependence, the runaway deficit, Patriot Act, and on and on. He may well be regarded as the man who presided over our ultimate undoing.
Citizen Carrier
New member
Over the years, I've noticed that when I have this discussion about the Civil War, those who claim secession wasn't about preserving slavery (for both social and economic reasons) never cite any of the Confederate Declarations of Secession to back up their claim.
It would be like saying NOT to look at the Declaration of Independence for the reasons behind us breaking away from England. Such a notion would be laughable. That is why the Founders wrote the darn thing. And it is why the various southern states wrote theirs.
Nor do they quote speeches given by Southern politicians and VIPs to the conventions that decided to vote in favor of secession. What do you suppose all those men were talking about? Taxes and tariffs?
Nope. Quotes from English and Copperhead northern newspapers?
My goodness, their speeches and signed documents are part of historical record and those people TOLD us exactly what was driving them to secede.
It would be like saying NOT to look at the Declaration of Independence for the reasons behind us breaking away from England. Such a notion would be laughable. That is why the Founders wrote the darn thing. And it is why the various southern states wrote theirs.
Nor do they quote speeches given by Southern politicians and VIPs to the conventions that decided to vote in favor of secession. What do you suppose all those men were talking about? Taxes and tariffs?
Nope. Quotes from English and Copperhead northern newspapers?
My goodness, their speeches and signed documents are part of historical record and those people TOLD us exactly what was driving them to secede.
The Lincoln Myths
There is a good reason why the Lincoln legend has taken on such mythical proportions: Much of what Americans think they know about Abraham Lincoln is in fact a myth. Let's consider a few of the more prominent ones.
Myth #1: Lincoln invaded the South to free the slaves. Ending slavery and racial injustice is not why the North invaded. As Lincoln wrote to Horace Greeley on Aug. 22, 1862: "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"
Congress announced to the world on July 22, 1861, that the purpose of the war was not "interfering with the rights or established institutions of those states" (i.e., slavery), but to preserve the Union "with the rights of the several states unimpaired." At the time of Fort Sumter (April 12, 1861) only the seven states of the deep South had seceded. There were more slaves in the Union than out of it, and Lincoln had no plans to free any of them.
The North invaded to regain lost federal tax revenue by keeping the Union intact by force of arms. In his First Inaugural Lincoln promised to invade any state that failed to collect "the duties and imposts," and he kept his promise. On April 19, 1861, the reason Lincoln gave for his naval blockade of the Southern ports was that "the collection of the revenue cannot be effectually executed" in the states that had seceded.
There is a good reason why the Lincoln legend has taken on such mythical proportions: Much of what Americans think they know about Abraham Lincoln is in fact a myth. Let's consider a few of the more prominent ones.
Myth #1: Lincoln invaded the South to free the slaves. Ending slavery and racial injustice is not why the North invaded. As Lincoln wrote to Horace Greeley on Aug. 22, 1862: "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"
Congress announced to the world on July 22, 1861, that the purpose of the war was not "interfering with the rights or established institutions of those states" (i.e., slavery), but to preserve the Union "with the rights of the several states unimpaired." At the time of Fort Sumter (April 12, 1861) only the seven states of the deep South had seceded. There were more slaves in the Union than out of it, and Lincoln had no plans to free any of them.
The North invaded to regain lost federal tax revenue by keeping the Union intact by force of arms. In his First Inaugural Lincoln promised to invade any state that failed to collect "the duties and imposts," and he kept his promise. On April 19, 1861, the reason Lincoln gave for his naval blockade of the Southern ports was that "the collection of the revenue cannot be effectually executed" in the states that had seceded.
Myth #2: Lincoln's war saved the Union. The war may have saved the Union geographically, but it destroyed it philosophically by destroying its voluntary nature. In the Articles of Confederation, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution, the states described themselves as "free and independent." They delegated certain powers to the federal government they had created as their agent but retained sovereignty for themselves.
This was widely understood in the North as well as the South in 1861. As the Brooklyn Daily Eagle editorialized on Nov. 13, 1860, the Union "depends for its continuance on the free consent and will of the sovereign people of each state, and when that consent and will is withdrawn on either part, their Union is gone." The New York Journal of Commerce concurred, writing on Jan. 12, 1861, that a coerced Union changes the nature of government from "a voluntary one, in which the people are sovereigns, to a despotism where one part of the people are slaves." The majority of Northern newspapers agreed.
This was widely understood in the North as well as the South in 1861. As the Brooklyn Daily Eagle editorialized on Nov. 13, 1860, the Union "depends for its continuance on the free consent and will of the sovereign people of each state, and when that consent and will is withdrawn on either part, their Union is gone." The New York Journal of Commerce concurred, writing on Jan. 12, 1861, that a coerced Union changes the nature of government from "a voluntary one, in which the people are sovereigns, to a despotism where one part of the people are slaves." The majority of Northern newspapers agreed.
Myth #3: Lincoln championed equality and natural rights. His words and, more important, his actions, repudiate this myth. "I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races," he announced in his Aug. 21, 1858, debate with Stephen Douglas. "I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position." And, "Free them [slaves] and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this. We cannot, then, make them equals."
In Springfield, Ill., on July 17, 1858, Lincoln said, "What I would most desire would be the separation of the white and black races." On Sept. 18, 1858, in Charleston, Ill., he said: "I will to the very last stand by the law of this state, which forbids the marrying of white people with Negroes."
Lincoln supported the Illinois Constitution, which prohibited the emigration of black people into the state, and he also supported the Illinois Black Codes, which deprived the small number of free blacks in the state any semblance of citizenship. He strongly supported the Fugitive Slave Act, which compelled Northern states to capture runaway slaves and return them to their owners. In his First Inaugural he pledged his support of a proposed constitutional amendment that had just passed the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives that would have prohibited the federal government from ever having the power "to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State." In his First Inaugural Lincoln advocated making this amendment "express and irrevocable."
Lincoln was also a lifelong advocate of "colonization" or shipping all black people to Africa, Central America, Haiti--anywhere but here. "I cannot make it better known than it already is," he stated in a Dec. 1, 1862, Message to Congress, "that I strongly favor colonization." To Lincoln, blacks could be "equal," but not in the United States.
In Springfield, Ill., on July 17, 1858, Lincoln said, "What I would most desire would be the separation of the white and black races." On Sept. 18, 1858, in Charleston, Ill., he said: "I will to the very last stand by the law of this state, which forbids the marrying of white people with Negroes."
Lincoln supported the Illinois Constitution, which prohibited the emigration of black people into the state, and he also supported the Illinois Black Codes, which deprived the small number of free blacks in the state any semblance of citizenship. He strongly supported the Fugitive Slave Act, which compelled Northern states to capture runaway slaves and return them to their owners. In his First Inaugural he pledged his support of a proposed constitutional amendment that had just passed the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives that would have prohibited the federal government from ever having the power "to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State." In his First Inaugural Lincoln advocated making this amendment "express and irrevocable."
Lincoln was also a lifelong advocate of "colonization" or shipping all black people to Africa, Central America, Haiti--anywhere but here. "I cannot make it better known than it already is," he stated in a Dec. 1, 1862, Message to Congress, "that I strongly favor colonization." To Lincoln, blacks could be "equal," but not in the United States.
- Status