Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 25, 2014, 02:40:50 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Don't forget to get your 2013 Gubernatorial Endorsements and Predictions in!

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
| |-+  U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderator: True Federalist)
| | |-+  Who's your least favorite president from each party?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 Print
Author Topic: Who's your least favorite president from each party?  (Read 37608 times)
Vepres
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8103
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.26, S: -7.39

View Profile
« Reply #175 on: July 10, 2009, 12:03:31 pm »
Ignore

Again, it is well documented that Lincoln opposed slavery from a young age. His own pastor was anit-slavery.

The strategy was to not force the slave states to rescind slaver, but to prohibit slavery from spreading, thus letting it whither and die.
The best you could do is make the argument that Lincoln was a flip-flopper on the issue of slavery. There is no way you could successfully argue that he was any sort of dedicated abolitionist.

Did you even read the page I linked to? With an open mind I might add.

Yes, and it contains little more than baseless speculation to try to explain away the many occasions in which Lincoln made clear he didn't have a problem with slavery.

Here's a quote from Lincoln in July 1, 1854: "If A. can prove, however conclusively, that he may, of right, enslave B. -- why may not B. snatch the same argument, and prove equally, that he may enslave A?--

You say A. is white, and B. is black. It is color, then; the lighter, having the right to enslave the darker? Take care. By this rule, you are to be slave to the first man you meet, with a fairer skin than your own.

You do not mean color exactly?--You mean the whites are intellectually the superiors of the blacks, and, therefore have the right to enslave them? Take care again. By this rule, you are to be slave to the first man you meet, with an intellect superior to your own.

But, say you, it is a question of interest; and, if you can make it your interest, you have the right to enslave another. Very well. And if he can make it his interest, he has the right to enslave you."

Another, from October 16, 1854: "I can not but hate [the declared indifference for slavery's spread]. I hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself. I hate it because it deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world -- enables the enemies of free institutions, with plausibility, to taunt us as hypocrites -- causes the real friends of freedom to doubt our sincerity, and especially because it forces so many really good men amongst ourselves into an open war with the very fundamental principles of civil liberty -- criticising [sic] the Declaration of Independence, and insisting that there is no right principle of action but self-interest."

One more, from August 24, 1855 in a letter to his friend: "In 1841 you and I had together a tedious low-water trip, on a Steam Boat from Louisville to St. Louis. You may remember, as I well do, that from Louisville to the mouth of the Ohio there were, on board, ten or a dozen slaves, shackled together with irons. That sight was a continual torment to me; and I see something like it every time I touch the Ohio, or any other slave-border. It is hardly fair to you to assume, that I have no interest in a thing which has, and continually exercises, the power of making me miserable. You ought rather to appreciate how much the great body of the Northern people do crucify their feelings, in order to maintain their loyalty to the constitution and the Union."

Logged

LOL, Failure

Alright, if Republicans gain less than 75 seats, I'll prominently display my failure in my signature.
Badger
badger
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10435
United States


View Profile
« Reply #176 on: July 10, 2009, 12:32:29 pm »
Ignore

Certainly the poor Irish working 14 hours a day had loads of liberty in the great industrial north.

Number of slaves who attempted (successfully or not) to flee north to become factory workers: countless thousands.

Number of factory workers who attempted to flee south to become slaves: 0

No matter how hard it was for northern indentured servants and industrial workers (and I agree it absolutely was---good thing unions were eventually formed to fight the worst abuses, right SR? ;-P ), don't kid yourself into thinking the horrors of slavery were comparable.

Bottom line: The South lost, the Union was saved, the slaves were freed, and the USA is infinitely stronger today for all of it----so get over it.
Logged
Senator Libertas
Libertas
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14781
Palestinian Territory, Occupied


Political Matrix
E: -7.48, S: -9.22

View Profile
« Reply #177 on: July 10, 2009, 12:55:18 pm »
Ignore

Again, it is well documented that Lincoln opposed slavery from a young age. His own pastor was anit-slavery.

The strategy was to not force the slave states to rescind slaver, but to prohibit slavery from spreading, thus letting it whither and die.
The best you could do is make the argument that Lincoln was a flip-flopper on the issue of slavery. There is no way you could successfully argue that he was any sort of dedicated abolitionist.

Did you even read the page I linked to? With an open mind I might add.

Yes, and it contains little more than baseless speculation to try to explain away the many occasions in which Lincoln made clear he didn't have a problem with slavery.

Here's a quote from Lincoln in July 1, 1854: "If A. can prove, however conclusively, that he may, of right, enslave B. -- why may not B. snatch the same argument, and prove equally, that he may enslave A?--

You say A. is white, and B. is black. It is color, then; the lighter, having the right to enslave the darker? Take care. By this rule, you are to be slave to the first man you meet, with a fairer skin than your own.

You do not mean color exactly?--You mean the whites are intellectually the superiors of the blacks, and, therefore have the right to enslave them? Take care again. By this rule, you are to be slave to the first man you meet, with an intellect superior to your own.

But, say you, it is a question of interest; and, if you can make it your interest, you have the right to enslave another. Very well. And if he can make it his interest, he has the right to enslave you."

Another, from October 16, 1854: "I can not but hate [the declared indifference for slavery's spread]. I hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself. I hate it because it deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world -- enables the enemies of free institutions, with plausibility, to taunt us as hypocrites -- causes the real friends of freedom to doubt our sincerity, and especially because it forces so many really good men amongst ourselves into an open war with the very fundamental principles of civil liberty -- criticising [sic] the Declaration of Independence, and insisting that there is no right principle of action but self-interest."

One more, from August 24, 1855 in a letter to his friend: "In 1841 you and I had together a tedious low-water trip, on a Steam Boat from Louisville to St. Louis. You may remember, as I well do, that from Louisville to the mouth of the Ohio there were, on board, ten or a dozen slaves, shackled together with irons. That sight was a continual torment to me; and I see something like it every time I touch the Ohio, or any other slave-border. It is hardly fair to you to assume, that I have no interest in a thing which has, and continually exercises, the power of making me miserable. You ought rather to appreciate how much the great body of the Northern people do crucify their feelings, in order to maintain their loyalty to the constitution and the Union."



Alright, so Lincoln was either

A) a flip-flopper

B) a coward

C) a liar


None of those options reflect particularly well on him.
Logged
SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9221
Israel


View Profile
« Reply #178 on: July 10, 2009, 01:16:43 pm »
Ignore

Quote
Let me ask you SPC. If California succeeded from the union (purely to make a point, it would never happen) and attacked a military base owned by the US there before they could leave, wouldn't you be furious? Wouldn't you consider that an act of war?

Well, as a Californian, I would be on my states' side. Plus, Lincoln was sending supplies to Fort Sumter, not ordering troops to leave, so the analogy is invalid.

What if it was another state then? A state bordering yours.

As I pointed out, the analogy is invalid.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Lincoln was justified in suspending habeas corpus. Article I, Section 9 of the constitution states, "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

That power is delegated to Congress, otherwise it wouldn't be in Article I of the Constitution, which specifically deals with Congress.

In March 1963, Congress passed the habeas corpus act, which endorsed Lincolns actions on the issue, both past and present.

And that matters why? He still violated the Constitution, and even if an act of Congress could override that, it would be an ex post facto law, which is unconstitutional.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Why did he do this? Because many of the anit-war protesters were just asking for conflict. Lincoln was protecting the US citizens from even more conflict.

Very Orwellian. Protecting them from conflict by instigating it!

I'm no historian, but to my knowledge many were actively calling for conflict in the Union states.

As you said, you are no historian.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Justified in my opinion. Much of these suspensions were used in Maryland, for if Maryland succeeded the US capital would be surrounded by the enemy, which could cause a collapse of the Union.

And they could just move the capital.

True, but don't forget how many people lived there.

And don't forget how many people lived in the Confederacy that wanted to be free of Union control.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Certainly if you walked down the street, peacefully protesting the war, without try to cause or imply violence, they wouldn't have been arrested. They all received trials after the war anyway. 

Even though many of them were just newspaper publishers peacefully exercising freedom of speech? And what good is it for them to receive trials AFTER THE WAR WAS OVER?

Because they may get out or be proven guilty.

I would bet that many of these newspaper publishers were calling for conflict, adding fuel to the flame if you will.

They should have been tried when they were imprisoned, in accordance with the law. And why do you automatically assume that the newspaper publishers were calling for conflict? Most of them were just warning against war. Do you automatically assume that those in Soviet gulags were calling for conflict as well?

Quote
Quote
Quote
SPC, regardless of what the Union did, the confederates chose to solve it through violence, instead of diplomacy. They started the war.

No, the Union chose to solve it through violence by refusing to recognize the independence of the CSA.

Uh, no. Lincoln himself said on multiple occasions that he intended to solve the problem through diplomacy.

Actions speak louder than words.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Libertas, Lincoln was opposed to slavery.

Even though he said that he would be willing to save the Union without freeing a single slave?

In his inaugural he said he would not force the states to do anything regarding slavery. He said it multiple times on the campaign trail. Therefore the south had no reason to succeed. It's like if Texas really decided to succeed because Obama's anti-NAFTA rhetoric would hurt them, even though Obama has done little to suggest he would outright end NAFTA.

They seceded because Lincoln was going to raise tariffs, which he did. And why does a reason for secession matter? If you do not wish to be a part of a voluntary union, your reasoning for leaving is irrelevent.

Quote
Additionally, Lincoln was very pro-states' rights, so why should the southern states succeeded. They still had voices in congress as well.

You are joking, right? Lincoln was a supporter of a strong central government, and a voice in congress is irrelevent when the North is the majority.

Quote
While the southern states had every right to be mad that the candidate they opposed was elected, to succeed because of that is unjustifiable and in a way goes against the spirit of democracy.

First of all, it's secede, not succeed. Second, why should they be bound to be part of a Union they do not wish to be a part of? As Benjamin Franklin said, "Democracy is two wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for dinner". Why should the South be forced to be the sheep in this analogy? Would you consider it to be unjustifiable for the sheep in this election to run for its life?

Quote
Finally, a Lincoln quote, "If the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate itóbreak it, so to speakóbut does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?" This makes perfect sense to me. As a Libertarian, even you believe in the enforcing of contracts, no?

Yes, but I also believe in the right to leave contracts if you feel that it is no longer of use to you. For example, if your wife filed for divorce, it would be completely unjustified to beat the sh**t out of her. That is basically what Lincoln did to the CSA.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Radicals never get anything done, and often alienate people from their cause. Lincoln realized that a pragmatic approach was needed. If he took a hard line approach to slavery, Missouri, Kentucky, and Maryland may have succeeded as well. The Confederates would also rally their people better to fight against the Union. Strategically unwise.

On the contrary, the Emancipation Proclamation only "freed" slaves in the areas that the Union Army didn't control. It was pure strategy.

Again, it is well documented that Lincoln opposed slavery from a young age. His own pastor was anit-slavery.

Actions speak louder than words. He didn't free a single slave.

Quote
Quote
Quote
High tariffs were much more viable an option then they are now. There was no internet, no telephones, no airplanes. Einzige gave good justifications as well.

The government functioned for several decades w/o high tariffs.

I concede this. However, didn't Thomas Jefferson, a man you libertarians admire so much, push for a unilateral embargo. Besides, I'm not going to let one position cause me to hate a President.

Jefferson ceased to be good by the time he took the presidential oath of office. Obviously I disapprove of his embargo.

Quote
Quote
Quote
As far as I'm concerned, the Confederates started the war. They fired the first shot. They were contesting the border states, instead of allowing them to vote for whether they wanted to remain in the Union or join the Confederates.

Just like the Poles started WWII by "firing the first shot" at Gleiwicz, right? Roll Eyes

Hitler claimed Poland belonged to Germany and was preparing to invade, though he had no reason to.

Just like Lincoln claimed the Confederacy belonged to the Union and was preparing to invade! Perfect analogy!
Logged


House endorsements: Walter (AZ-9), Loudermilk (GA-11), Blum (IA-1), Dietzel (LA-6), Poliquin (ME-2), McMillin (MI-8), Emmer (MN-6), Mills (MN-8), Brat (VA-7), Didier (WA-4), Mooney (WV-2)
cindywho2212
Rookie
*
Posts: 33
United States


View Profile
« Reply #179 on: July 10, 2009, 02:32:26 pm »
Ignore

Well  too long ago for me to  know about most of them, so I'll post the ones I know about and not read about in books written by someone I don't know.

Democrat: Obama, (oh yes, I didn't see his name on your list) and Obama.
Republican: Like all of them.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2009, 02:33:57 pm by cindywho2212 »Logged

Never be bullied into silence. Never allow yourself to be made a victim. Accept no one's definition of your life; define yourself.

Never explain yourself. Your friends don't need it and your enemies won't believe it.
Scottish Robb Stark
Antonio V
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30171
France


View Profile
« Reply #180 on: July 10, 2009, 02:39:47 pm »
Ignore

Democrat: Obama, (oh yes, I didn't see his name on your list) and Obama.
Republican: Like all of them.

Wow ! What an original list ! Cheesy
Let me guess, what is your favorite party ?
Logged



Robb of the House Stark, First of his Name, Lord of Winterfell and King in the North



Quote from: IRC
22:15   ComradeSibboleth   this is all extremely terrible and in all respects absolutely fycking dire.

"A reformist is someone who realizes that, when you bang your head on a wall, it's the head that breaks rather than the wall."

Peppino, from the movie Baaria
cindywho2212
Rookie
*
Posts: 33
United States


View Profile
« Reply #181 on: July 10, 2009, 03:01:25 pm »
Ignore

Democrat: Obama, (oh yes, I didn't see his name on your list) and Obama.
Republican: Like all of them.

Wow ! What an original list ! Cheesy
Let me guess, what is your favorite party ?
WOW! Do you have to guess?   
Logged

Never be bullied into silence. Never allow yourself to be made a victim. Accept no one's definition of your life; define yourself.

Never explain yourself. Your friends don't need it and your enemies won't believe it.
Vepres
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8103
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.26, S: -7.39

View Profile
« Reply #182 on: July 10, 2009, 03:38:38 pm »
Ignore

Quote
Let me ask you SPC. If California succeeded from the union (purely to make a point, it would never happen) and attacked a military base owned by the US there before they could leave, wouldn't you be furious? Wouldn't you consider that an act of war?

Well, as a Californian, I would be on my states' side. Plus, Lincoln was sending supplies to Fort Sumter, not ordering troops to leave, so the analogy is invalid.

What if it was another state then? A state bordering yours.

As I pointed out, the analogy is invalid.

I concede this.

New analogy: If Obama and congress decided to end NAFTA and put high tariffs on trade from Mexico, and the four border states seceded, would they be justified in doing so? No, a ration person would say they were overreacting.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Lincoln was justified in suspending habeas corpus. Article I, Section 9 of the constitution states, "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

That power is delegated to Congress, otherwise it wouldn't be in Article I of the Constitution, which specifically deals with Congress.

In March 1963, Congress passed the habeas corpus act, which endorsed Lincolns actions on the issue, both past and present.

And that matters why? He still violated the Constitution, and even if an act of Congress could override that, it would be an ex post facto law, which is unconstitutional.

In fact, the constitution says nowhere to who the power to suspend habeas corpus lies. It is in the first article, but congressional powers were in section 8.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Why did he do this? Because many of the anit-war protesters were just asking for conflict. Lincoln was protecting the US citizens from even more conflict.

Very Orwellian. Protecting them from conflict by instigating it!

I'm no historian, but to my knowledge many were actively calling for conflict in the Union states.

As you said, you are no historian.

But, you didn't deny my claim.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Justified in my opinion. Much of these suspensions were used in Maryland, for if Maryland succeeded the US capital would be surrounded by the enemy, which could cause a collapse of the Union.

And they could just move the capital.

True, but don't forget how many people lived there.

And don't forget how many people lived in the Confederacy that wanted to be free of Union control.

What of Confederates who didn't want to secede? It goes both ways SPC.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Certainly if you walked down the street, peacefully protesting the war, without try to cause or imply violence, they wouldn't have been arrested. They all received trials after the war anyway. 

Even though many of them were just newspaper publishers peacefully exercising freedom of speech? And what good is it for them to receive trials AFTER THE WAR WAS OVER?

Because they may get out or be proven guilty.

I would bet that many of these newspaper publishers were calling for conflict, adding fuel to the flame if you will.

They should have been tried when they were imprisoned, in accordance with the law. And why do you automatically assume that the newspaper publishers were calling for conflict? Most of them were just warning against war. Do you automatically assume that those in Soviet gulags were calling for conflict as well?

I highly doubt Lincoln was even notified of many of these imprisonments.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
SPC, regardless of what the Union did, the confederates chose to solve it through violence, instead of diplomacy. They started the war.

No, the Union chose to solve it through violence by refusing to recognize the independence of the CSA.

Uh, no. Lincoln himself said on multiple occasions that he intended to solve the problem through diplomacy.

Actions speak louder than words.

Elaborate. The south fired the first shot, started the first battle. Even an ultra-liberal nowadays would strike back if we were fired upon.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Libertas, Lincoln was opposed to slavery.

Even though he said that he would be willing to save the Union without freeing a single slave?

In his inaugural he said he would not force the states to do anything regarding slavery. He said it multiple times on the campaign trail. Therefore the south had no reason to succeed. It's like if Texas really decided to succeed because Obama's anti-NAFTA rhetoric would hurt them, even though Obama has done little to suggest he would outright end NAFTA.

They seceded because Lincoln was going to raise tariffs, which he did. And why does a reason for secession matter? If you do not wish to be a part of a voluntary union, your reasoning for leaving is irrelevent.

Additionally, Lincoln was very pro-states' rights, so why should the southern states succeeded. They still had voices in congress as well.

You are joking, right? Lincoln was a supporter of a strong central government, and a voice in congress is irrelevent when the North is the majority.

He stated multiple times that if the southerns states didn't secede, he would allow them to handle the issue of slavery on their own. On your last comment, that's like saying all the states where their representation is dominated by Republicans should secede because they don't have a voice.

Quote
Quote
Quote
While the southern states had every right to be mad that the candidate they opposed was elected, to succeed because of that is unjustifiable and in a way goes against the spirit of democracy.

First of all, it's secede, not succeed. Second, why should they be bound to be part of a Union they do not wish to be a part of? As Benjamin Franklin said, "Democracy is two wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for dinner". Why should the South be forced to be the sheep in this analogy? Would you consider it to be unjustifiable for the sheep in this election to run for its life?

Because the states entered into a contract with the other states. Without trying to negotiate a new one or amend the current one.
Finally, a Lincoln quote, "If the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate itóbreak it, so to speakóbut does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?" This makes perfect sense to me. As a Libertarian, even you believe in the enforcing of contracts, no?

Yes, but I also believe in the right to leave contracts if you feel that it is no longer of use to you. For example, if your wife filed for divorce, it would be completely unjustified to beat the sh**t out of her. That is basically what Lincoln did to the CSA. [/quote]

If you break a contract, you must accept that you're going to be punished for it, and deservedly so. By the way, marriage isn't the best analogy here.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Radicals never get anything done, and often alienate people from their cause. Lincoln realized that a pragmatic approach was needed. If he took a hard line approach to slavery, Missouri, Kentucky, and Maryland may have succeeded as well. The Confederates would also rally their people better to fight against the Union. Strategically unwise.

On the contrary, the Emancipation Proclamation only "freed" slaves in the areas that the Union Army didn't control. It was pure strategy.

Again, it is well documented that Lincoln opposed slavery from a young age. His own pastor was anit-slavery.

Actions speak louder than words. He didn't free a single slave.[/quote]

A little thing called "The Emancipation Proclamation" disagrees with you.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
High tariffs were much more viable an option then they are now. There was no internet, no telephones, no airplanes. Einzige gave good justifications as well.

The government functioned for several decades w/o high tariffs.

I concede this. However, didn't Thomas Jefferson, a man you libertarians admire so much, push for a unilateral embargo. Besides, I'm not going to let one position cause me to hate a President.

Jefferson ceased to be good by the time he took the presidential oath of office. Obviously I disapprove of his embargo.

If a piece of a country decided to secede because of things like tariffs, well, we'd probably have thousands more countries than we do now. The southern states are a part of the contract, knowingly accepting that they may have to make concessions. Instead of trying to win more seats for the Democrats in congress and attacking Lincoln, they just left. The northerners made the concession that the southern states wanted to keep slavery, so why shouldn't the southern states just tolerate it and focus on getting Democrats to win.

« Last Edit: July 10, 2009, 03:49:45 pm by Midwest Lt. Governor Vepres »Logged

LOL, Failure

Alright, if Republicans gain less than 75 seats, I'll prominently display my failure in my signature.
Psychic Octopus
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9171
United States


View Profile
« Reply #183 on: July 10, 2009, 03:39:50 pm »
Ignore

Republican: Warren Harding

Democrat: James Buchanan

Federalist: John Adams*

Democratic-Republican: James Madison

Whig: Millard Fillmore


*Honestly who could side against Washington. Not much of a choice for Federalist.
Logged

Vepres
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8103
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.26, S: -7.39

View Profile
« Reply #184 on: July 10, 2009, 03:52:58 pm »
Ignore

Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
As far as I'm concerned, the Confederates started the war. They fired the first shot. They were contesting the border states, instead of allowing them to vote for whether they wanted to remain in the Union or join the Confederates.

Just like the Poles started WWII by "firing the first shot" at Gleiwicz, right? Roll Eyes

Hitler claimed Poland belonged to Germany and was preparing to invade, though he had no reason to.

Just like Lincoln claimed the Confederacy belonged to the Union and was preparing to invade! Perfect analogy!

Poland wasn't a part of Germany, at least for a long time (maybe way back in history). Again, the north was justified in its actions because the southern states weren't diplomatic, they took the immature route, which was to just leave without the consent of the other states.

I would note, that the President takes an oath to "preserve, protect, and defend" the constitution. That alone justifies the war.

Regardless of the motivation or intent, Lincoln significantly increased individual rights in the US in the long term. I understand why you dislike him for the suspension of habeas corpus, and I agree that there is anecdotal evidence to suggest that it was misused on multiple occasions (though I doubt Lincoln personally approved of many of these). If we had let the southern states be, this would be a very chaotic region, with states changing allegiances and forming new countries constantly. If you look at the big picture, the historical perspective, our country is much better off now than if we hadn't gone to war.

A good analogy is Iraq. Right now it is seen as a terrible war, and I mostly agree. However, if it is a stable democracy in 50 years that helps spread democracy across the region, people will approve of Bush and his actions there. You seem to focused, look at the big picture.

Finally, I would like to note that the vast majority of historians, who are much more knowledgeable about history than you or me, consistently say Lincoln was a great President.


Note: I will say this, that my opinion of Lincoln during this debate, in which I did much research for, has dropped significantly. However, to say he is the worst President when you have people like Wilson, Andrew Johnson, Buchanan, or Harding, he is still a notch above them (not to mention hew was also a skilled military strategist). However, I still think the civil war was provoked by the Confederates.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2009, 04:16:41 pm by Midwest Lt. Governor Vepres »Logged

LOL, Failure

Alright, if Republicans gain less than 75 seats, I'll prominently display my failure in my signature.
Vepres
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8103
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.26, S: -7.39

View Profile
« Reply #185 on: July 10, 2009, 04:22:08 pm »
Ignore

One last question, do you believe that, regardless of what he did, Lincoln had good intentions? It doesn't excuse what he did, but I'd like to see your thoughts, SPC.
Logged

LOL, Failure

Alright, if Republicans gain less than 75 seats, I'll prominently display my failure in my signature.
SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9221
Israel


View Profile
« Reply #186 on: July 12, 2009, 01:46:17 am »
Ignore

Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
As far as I'm concerned, the Confederates started the war. They fired the first shot. They were contesting the border states, instead of allowing them to vote for whether they wanted to remain in the Union or join the Confederates.

Just like the Poles started WWII by "firing the first shot" at Gleiwicz, right? Roll Eyes

Hitler claimed Poland belonged to Germany and was preparing to invade, though he had no reason to.

Just like Lincoln claimed the Confederacy belonged to the Union and was preparing to invade! Perfect analogy!

Poland wasn't a part of Germany, at least for a long time (maybe way back in history). Again, the north was justified in its actions because the southern states weren't diplomatic, they took the immature route, which was to just leave without the consent of the other states.

the Polish Corridor as part of Germany as recently as 1918. Poland wasn't diplomatic about discussing the Polish Corridor with Germany either, they took the immatute route, which was to just leave without the consent of the Germans. I suppose that you have an opinion of Hitler's actions to quell the "secessionist movement" that had been there for the past 21 years?

Quote
I would note, that the President takes an oath to "preserve, protect, and defend" the constitution. That alone justifies the war.

Then why does the Constitution say that only Congress can declare war? And what does invading states that want nothing more than to leave in peace have to do with "defending the Constitution"?

Quote
Regardless of the motivation or intent, Lincoln significantly increased individual rights in the US in the long term. I understand why you dislike him for the suspension of habeas corpus, and I agree that there is anecdotal evidence to suggest that it was misused on multiple occasions (though I doubt Lincoln personally approved of many of these). If we had let the southern states be, this would be a very chaotic region, with states changing allegiances and forming new countries constantly. If you look at the big picture, the historical perspective, our country is much better off now than if we hadn't gone to war.

Bullsh**t. Prior to the "Civil" War, it was generally understood that states could secede from their federal government. Afterward, that right had been supressed violently, and the people no longer have any safeguard of their individual rights against a tyrannical federal government. Does it matter whether Lincoln personally approved of the abuse if he was the one that allowed it to occur? You could just as easliy make that argument in favor of the British side of the American Revolution. "If we had let the American colonies be, it would be a very chaotic region, with states changng allegiances and forming new countries constantly." Somehow I doubt you are an enthusiast for British colonization.

Quote
A good analogy is Iraq. Right now it is seen as a terrible war, and I mostly agree. However, if it is a stable democracy in 50 years that helps spread democracy across the region, people will approve of Bush and his actions there. You seem to focused, look at the big picture.

Somehow I doubt that the hundreds of thousands of corpses created by our intervention in Iraq will approve of Bush and his actions there. Somehow I doubt that the Sunni minority is going to very excited for "democracy".

Quote
Finally, I would like to note that the vast majority of historians, who are much more knowledgeable about history than you or me, consistently say Lincoln was a great President.


Could that be because historians have a bias towards larger government? If historians said that George III was a great king, does that vindicate him?

Quote
Note: I will say this, that my opinion of Lincoln during this debate, in which I did much research for, has dropped significantly. However, to say he is the worst President when you have people like Wilson, Andrew Johnson, Buchanan, or Harding, he is still a notch above them (not to mention hew was also a skilled military strategist). However, I still think the civil war was provoked by the Confederates.

Lincoln is the worst president because he made the abuses of power by all Presidents following him possible. Just wondering, do you feel that the Revolutionary War was provoked by the Americans? Or do you feel that the Kuwaitis provoked the Persian Gulf War? What period of time is required between secessions before it becomes illegitimate to supress them?
Logged


House endorsements: Walter (AZ-9), Loudermilk (GA-11), Blum (IA-1), Dietzel (LA-6), Poliquin (ME-2), McMillin (MI-8), Emmer (MN-6), Mills (MN-8), Brat (VA-7), Didier (WA-4), Mooney (WV-2)
WillK
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1291


View Profile
« Reply #187 on: July 27, 2009, 07:08:48 am »
Ignore

Quote
Bullsh**t. Prior to the "Civil" War, it was generally understood that states could secede from their federal government.

This is completely false.  Bogus.  Bullsh**t. 


Quote
Lincoln is the worst president because he made the abuses of power by all Presidents following him possible.

For that reason i would think you would consider Jefferson the worst president, since he made Lincoln's actions possible.
Logged
President Mitt
Giovanni
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3647
Samoa


View Profile
« Reply #188 on: July 27, 2009, 10:25:24 am »
Ignore

Federalist
George Washington
John Adams

Democratic-Republican
Thomas Jefferson
James Madison
James Monroe
John Quincy Adams

Whigs
William Henry Harrison
John Tyler
Zachary Taylor
Milliard Fillmore

Democrat
Andrew Jackson
Martin Van Buren
James K. Polk
Franklin Pierce
James Buchanan
Grover Cleveland
Woodrow Wilson
Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Harry S Truman
John F. Kennedy
Lyndon B. Johnson
Jimmy Carter
Bill Clinton

Republican
 Abraham Lincoln
Andrew Johnson
Ulysses S. Grant
Rutherford B. Hayes
James A. Garfield
Chester A. Arthur
Benjamin Harrison
William McKinley
Theodore Roosevelt
William Howard Taft
William G. Harding
Calvin Coolidge
Herbert Hoover
Dwight D. Eisenhower
Richard Nixon
Gerald R. Ford
Ronald Reagan
George H. W. Bush
George W. Bush
Logged

[This space is available for purchase]
Vepres
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8103
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.26, S: -7.39

View Profile
« Reply #189 on: July 27, 2009, 11:05:51 am »
Ignore

Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
As far as I'm concerned, the Confederates started the war. They fired the first shot. They were contesting the border states, instead of allowing them to vote for whether they wanted to remain in the Union or join the Confederates.

Just like the Poles started WWII by "firing the first shot" at Gleiwicz, right? Roll Eyes

Hitler claimed Poland belonged to Germany and was preparing to invade, though he had no reason to.

Just like Lincoln claimed the Confederacy belonged to the Union and was preparing to invade! Perfect analogy!

Poland wasn't a part of Germany, at least for a long time (maybe way back in history). Again, the north was justified in its actions because the southern states weren't diplomatic, they took the immature route, which was to just leave without the consent of the other states.

the Polish Corridor as part of Germany as recently as 1918. Poland wasn't diplomatic about discussing the Polish Corridor with Germany either, they took the immatute route, which was to just leave without the consent of the Germans. I suppose that you have an opinion of Hitler's actions to quell the "secessionist movement" that had been there for the past 21 years?

Quote
I would note, that the President takes an oath to "preserve, protect, and defend" the constitution. That alone justifies the war.

Then why does the Constitution say that only Congress can declare war? And what does invading states that want nothing more than to leave in peace have to do with "defending the Constitution"?

Quote
Regardless of the motivation or intent, Lincoln significantly increased individual rights in the US in the long term. I understand why you dislike him for the suspension of habeas corpus, and I agree that there is anecdotal evidence to suggest that it was misused on multiple occasions (though I doubt Lincoln personally approved of many of these). If we had let the southern states be, this would be a very chaotic region, with states changing allegiances and forming new countries constantly. If you look at the big picture, the historical perspective, our country is much better off now than if we hadn't gone to war.

Bullsh**t. Prior to the "Civil" War, it was generally understood that states could secede from their federal government. Afterward, that right had been supressed violently, and the people no longer have any safeguard of their individual rights against a tyrannical federal government. Does it matter whether Lincoln personally approved of the abuse if he was the one that allowed it to occur? You could just as easliy make that argument in favor of the British side of the American Revolution. "If we had let the American colonies be, it would be a very chaotic region, with states changng allegiances and forming new countries constantly." Somehow I doubt you are an enthusiast for British colonization.

Quote
A good analogy is Iraq. Right now it is seen as a terrible war, and I mostly agree. However, if it is a stable democracy in 50 years that helps spread democracy across the region, people will approve of Bush and his actions there. You seem to focused, look at the big picture.

Somehow I doubt that the hundreds of thousands of corpses created by our intervention in Iraq will approve of Bush and his actions there. Somehow I doubt that the Sunni minority is going to very excited for "democracy".

Quote
Finally, I would like to note that the vast majority of historians, who are much more knowledgeable about history than you or me, consistently say Lincoln was a great President.


Could that be because historians have a bias towards larger government? If historians said that George III was a great king, does that vindicate him?

Quote
Note: I will say this, that my opinion of Lincoln during this debate, in which I did much research for, has dropped significantly. However, to say he is the worst President when you have people like Wilson, Andrew Johnson, Buchanan, or Harding, he is still a notch above them (not to mention hew was also a skilled military strategist). However, I still think the civil war was provoked by the Confederates.

Lincoln is the worst president because he made the abuses of power by all Presidents following him possible. Just wondering, do you feel that the Revolutionary War was provoked by the Americans? Or do you feel that the Kuwaitis provoked the Persian Gulf War? What period of time is required between secessions before it becomes illegitimate to supress them?

Well, in both the wars you mentioned, the other side fired the first shot, drew the first blood.

Anyway, at the time the civil war was not justified. I'm sure that diplomacy could've won out. Though ultimately, I'm happy the slaves in the south were freed probably decades before they otherwise would have been. In my opinion it's  diplomacy>war>inaction. But whatever, my opinion of Lincoln is very low now, perhaps not as low as yours, so in a sense you won this debate. Let's just end it now.
Logged

LOL, Failure

Alright, if Republicans gain less than 75 seats, I'll prominently display my failure in my signature.
Badger
badger
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10435
United States


View Profile
« Reply #190 on: July 27, 2009, 01:03:16 pm »
Ignore


Democrat
Andrew Jackson
Martin Van Buren
James K. Polk
Franklin Pierce
James Buchanan
Grover Cleveland
Woodrow Wilson
Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Harry S Truman
John F. Kennedy
Lyndon B. Johnson
Jimmy Carter
Bill Clinton


Just curious, Giovanni. Why was Wilson your least favorite Democrat? Most people either choose one of the pre-Civil War do-nothings like Pierce or Buchanan, or some conservatives decrying what they perceive as a socialist welfare state choose FDR or LBJ. Wilson is a rather unique choice and I'm interested to hear your thoughts.

Blundering America's entry into the League of Nations? Heavily segregating the federal government? Something else?
Logged
Хahar
Xahar
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 38730
Bangladesh


View Profile
« Reply #191 on: July 27, 2009, 01:35:13 pm »
Ignore

What happened to that spat? I was enjoying it so much. Libertarians are the new Trots.
Logged

Update reading list

The idea of parodying the preceding Atlasian's postings is laughable, of course, but not for reasons one might expect.
Scottish Robb Stark
Antonio V
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30171
France


View Profile
« Reply #192 on: July 27, 2009, 02:53:28 pm »
Ignore

What happened to that spat? I was enjoying it so much. Libertarians are the new Trots.
Logged



Robb of the House Stark, First of his Name, Lord of Winterfell and King in the North



Quote from: IRC
22:15   ComradeSibboleth   this is all extremely terrible and in all respects absolutely fycking dire.

"A reformist is someone who realizes that, when you bang your head on a wall, it's the head that breaks rather than the wall."

Peppino, from the movie Baaria
pogo stick
JewishConservative
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3524
United States


View Profile
« Reply #193 on: July 27, 2009, 06:06:59 pm »
Ignore

Update :

Jimmy Carter (D)
Herbert Hoover (R)
Zach Taylor (W)
Thomas Jefferson (D-R)
Logged

Economic score: -6.80
Social score: -0.97
I'm a crazy Liberal  Troll. LAWL

ndvc ,b., b


CRAZY GAY TROLL LIBRAL FROM ALABAMAS
Alabama is dum redecks!


Gays and minorites are sexeh
??????????
StatesRights
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31304
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

View Profile
« Reply #194 on: July 28, 2009, 10:23:46 pm »
Ignore

Quote
Bullsh**t. Prior to the "Civil" War, it was generally understood that states could secede from their federal government.

This is completely false.  Bogus.  Bullsh**t. 

You do realize that West Point taught secession as a legal option for states up until the Civil War.
Logged
President Mitt
Giovanni
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3647
Samoa


View Profile
« Reply #195 on: July 29, 2009, 07:13:33 am »
Ignore


Democrat
Andrew Jackson
Martin Van Buren
James K. Polk
Franklin Pierce
James Buchanan
Grover Cleveland
Woodrow Wilson
Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Harry S Truman
John F. Kennedy
Lyndon B. Johnson
Jimmy Carter
Bill Clinton


Just curious, Giovanni. Why was Wilson your least favorite Democrat? Most people either choose one of the pre-Civil War do-nothings like Pierce or Buchanan, or some conservatives decrying what they perceive as a socialist welfare state choose FDR or LBJ. Wilson is a rather unique choice and I'm interested to hear your thoughts.

Blundering America's entry into the League of Nations? Heavily segregating the federal government? Something else?

I hated the Wilsonian ideology of intervention, he was a hypocrite, and a Racist. Most Democratic Presidents in the era usually accomplhsihed something good, LBJ (civil Rights), FDR (I support Social Security) but I cannot name one accomplishment of Wilson.
Logged

[This space is available for purchase]
Badger
badger
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10435
United States


View Profile
« Reply #196 on: July 29, 2009, 08:35:25 am »
Ignore


Democrat
Andrew Jackson
Martin Van Buren
James K. Polk
Franklin Pierce
James Buchanan
Grover Cleveland
Woodrow Wilson
Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Harry S Truman
John F. Kennedy
Lyndon B. Johnson
Jimmy Carter
Bill Clinton


Just curious, Giovanni. Why was Wilson your least favorite Democrat? Most people either choose one of the pre-Civil War do-nothings like Pierce or Buchanan, or some conservatives decrying what they perceive as a socialist welfare state choose FDR or LBJ. Wilson is a rather unique choice and I'm interested to hear your thoughts.

Blundering America's entry into the League of Nations? Heavily segregating the federal government? Something else?

I hated the Wilsonian ideology of intervention, he was a hypocrite, and a Racist. Most Democratic Presidents in the era usually accomplhsihed something good, LBJ (civil Rights), FDR (I support Social Security) but I cannot name one accomplishment of Wilson.
Interesting analysis. I agree with much of your critique. Though personally I liked Wilson's New Freedom plan which implemented some needed progressive reforms like establishing the Federal Reserve. This puts him above some of the lousy pre Civil War Democrats like Buchanan and Pierce in my book, despite the very real problems with Wilson that you cite.
Logged
WillK
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1291


View Profile
« Reply #197 on: July 31, 2009, 12:34:07 pm »
Ignore

Quote
Bullsh**t. Prior to the "Civil" War, it was generally understood that states could secede from their federal government.

This is completely false.  Bogus.  Bullsh**t. 

You do realize that West Point taught secession as a legal option for states up until the Civil War.

I do not realize it becuase it is not a true statement. 
 
Logged
Mechaman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13700
Jamaica


View Profile
« Reply #198 on: July 31, 2009, 02:10:50 pm »
Ignore


Democrat
Andrew Jackson
Martin Van Buren
James K. Polk
Franklin Pierce
James Buchanan
Grover Cleveland
Woodrow Wilson
Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Harry S Truman
John F. Kennedy
Lyndon B. Johnson
Jimmy Carter
Bill Clinton


Just curious, Giovanni. Why was Wilson your least favorite Democrat? Most people either choose one of the pre-Civil War do-nothings like Pierce or Buchanan, or some conservatives decrying what they perceive as a socialist welfare state choose FDR or LBJ. Wilson is a rather unique choice and I'm interested to hear your thoughts.

Blundering America's entry into the League of Nations? Heavily segregating the federal government? Something else?

I hated the Wilsonian ideology of intervention, he was a hypocrite, and a Racist. Most Democratic Presidents in the era usually accomplhsihed something good, LBJ (civil Rights), FDR (I support Social Security) but I cannot name one accomplishment of Wilson.
One hundred fold.
Logged

Mechaman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13700
Jamaica


View Profile
« Reply #199 on: July 31, 2009, 02:27:51 pm »
Ignore

Update!:

Mechman's least liked president of each party:

Federalist:
John Adams (Alien Sedition Acts anyone?)

Democratic-Republican:
James Madison
come on folks, if the British have set fire to Washington D.C. on your watch, you've failed.
If it weren't for that one fact, I probably would put JQ Adams.

Whig:
All of them. Epic douchebags.

Democratic:
Woodrow Wilson. Racist statefag who did everything in his power to get the US into a war we had no business being in under the guise of "neutrality".

Republican:
George W. Bush: Under his presidency civil liberties were thrown into the sh*tter and moralfaggotry was rampant. I rest my case.
Logged

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines