Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 16, 2019, 08:42:26 am
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Atlas Forum
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderators: Torie, Senator ON Progressive)
  Who's your least favorite president from each party? (search mode)
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Who's your least favorite president from each party?  (Read 57118 times)
Scam of God
Einzige
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,164
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.19, S: -9.91

« on: July 08, 2009, 10:33:03 pm »

Democratic-Republicans
John Quincy Adams

Whigs
John Tyler (he was a traitor)

Democratic
Andrew Johnson
Woodrow Wilson

Republican
Richard Nixon
Ronald Reagan
George W. Bush
Logged
Scam of God
Einzige
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,164
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.19, S: -9.91

« Reply #1 on: July 08, 2009, 10:53:17 pm »

Please, one day someone of the Lincoln dislikers could expalin me how the man who abolished slavery could be the worst president.
Yeah, I don't know how Americans could possibly not worship the man who on behalf of corporate interests started an unnecessary war that killed 500,000 of their countrymen, took upon himself dictatorial powers, oversaw war crimes, put the U.S. Constitution through the shredder, completely destroyed the carefully balanced government system crafted by the Founding Fathers, and was an all-around self-serving two-faced dirtbag. What's not to love about old Dishonest Abe?

I really don't understand why self-proclaimed 'libertarians' perpetuate this ancient canard. One of the central credos of classical liberal theory, first promulgated by John Locke, is that all men are possessed of the innate right of self-ownership. If one man owns another human being, he is contravening that basic right and, therefore, subjecting him to tyranny. Lincoln may have done some morally questionable things in pursuit of winning the war, but was, on the whole, fighting for a righteous cause.

I believe this is simply a side-effect of that decaying fusionist philosophy that will hopefully fall away completely when that particular ideological superstructure totally buckles.
Logged
Scam of God
Einzige
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,164
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.19, S: -9.91

« Reply #2 on: July 09, 2009, 04:31:50 pm »

Please, one day someone of the Lincoln dislikers could expalin me how the man who abolished slavery could be the worst president.
Suspending habeus corpus and an obsession over "states' rights".

Unfortunately those people don't understand that states don't have the right to override the Constitution.

The States created the Federal government. Therefore they hold the right to nullify federal law and leave the union if they believe they are being oppressed by that which they created.

They can void it together.  When a group of states breaches the contract they signed with all the others, that's not the same as voiding the contract.  They broke the law and then committed treason by attacking Ft. Sumter.  And when Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus he did so legally under the ability to enact Marshall Law, which was entirely appropriate in the state of Maryland where that occurred and would be in a number of other states.  I also don't see how being on the losing side of an election is the same as oppression.  Y'all broke the law, Lincoln enforced it as per his job description.  The end.
And the U.S.A. committed treason in 1776 with the Declaration of Independence. Have you read it lately?

That's an obvious non-sequiter and quite a desperate argument.
Really, do you even know what a non sequitur is? It is your response that is the non sequitur here, since you clearly have no argument to explain exactly what made 1861 so different from 1776.

You brought it up, prove how there is a connection.
You made the claim that the 1861 C.S.A. secession from the U.S. was treason. If this is the case, explain how the 1776 U.S. secession from Britain wasn't.

The 1776 secession was treason. I don't think anyone ever claimed otherwise.

Please, change your display name, as it's patently obvious you have no real interest in individual liberty beyond that which preserves the racial hierarchy into which you were born. Dealing with pseudo-and-quasi-libertarians like yourself is an embarrassment to those of us who take the philosophy to heart.
Logged
Scam of God
Einzige
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,164
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.19, S: -9.91

« Reply #3 on: July 09, 2009, 04:50:01 pm »

Please, change your display name, as it's patently obvious you have no real interest in individual liberty beyond that which preserves the racial hierarchy into which you were born. Dealing with pseudo-and-quasi-libertarians like yourself is an embarrassment to those of us who take the philosophy to heart.
Well, well, look at you flail around trying to turn this into a racial issue.

I'm not the one promoting a virulently racist, agrarian vision of 'libertarianism', you useless hick. 

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm the non-libertarian? I'm not the one supporting a backwards agrarian economy founded on the contravention of the law of self-ownership through slavery. The Confederacy was a slave-based socialist State.
Logged
Scam of God
Einzige
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,164
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.19, S: -9.91

« Reply #4 on: July 09, 2009, 05:10:31 pm »

I'm not the one promoting a virulently racist, agrarian vision of 'libertarianism', you useless hick.

I agree, you're not promoting libertarianism, you're promoting the borderline fascism of Abraham Lincoln.

Hahaha, wow.

So tell me, my Southern-fried friend: is socialism not the ownership by the collective of the labor power of the individual? And, if so, does that not qualify the collectively-owned (by the whites) of the black slaves' labor power as a form of socialism? Finally, if these two premises are met, does it not follow then that the Confederacy was a racialist-socialist polity, to be adamantly opposed by all supporters of free labor?

I don't actually expect you to, you know, think through this logically, applying a principled analysis to the issue. But you can at least make the effort to be intellectually honest.
Logged
Scam of God
Einzige
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,164
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.19, S: -9.91

« Reply #5 on: July 09, 2009, 05:44:41 pm »
« Edited: July 09, 2009, 05:47:17 pm by Einzige »

You sure you're in the right thread? One second we're talking about Lincoln's tariff war, the next you're talking about slavery. Quite a non sequitur.

Uh, no, it isn't. Because unless you've never heard of a war economy before, you'd know that tariffs and protectionism generally are entirely justifiable during a period of war: it guarantees business and stability to native industry, and therefore prevents them from selling arms and ammunition to the enemy. And so Lincoln's economic programme was formulated in the light of Southern secession; he was a free soiler capitalist otherwise. Not, of course, that I expect your primitive Southern brain to be able to wrap itself around this fine a point.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

If the rest of the world began marching posthaste off the nearest cliff, would the South follow also (let us hope)?

Slavery is the agrarian equivalent of socialism; for it treats the individual slaves as the means of production, and justifies the common ownership of them on a class (or race)-basis. It's not my fault your white trash cracker ancestors were too lazy to plow the land themselves, and so appropriated Africans to do it for them. Just as any method towards the defeat of socialism is sacrosanct, so too is massive resistance towards its agrarian counterpart. One cannot have socialism without slavery, and one cannot have slavery without socialism.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

And had the U.S. government followed the example of European powers and not resisted Soviet aggression, we'd be a benign social-democratic state today, right?

Don't be a tool. The European's hesitance to buck agrarian slavery is one of the chief reasons its industrial counterpart is so prevalent there today, in socialism.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Or, you know, his scheme to win the war, free the slaves from the bondage of their caste-based socialism, and restore them to honest capitalist employment?

Now I am going to go swimming, and that ought to give you time sufficient to eat your Porn-'N-Beans, fart, and play a few bars on the ol' banjo. But when I get back, I fully expect and want another Southern Manifesto to plow through. So, chop-chop.
Logged
Scam of God
Einzige
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,164
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.19, S: -9.91

« Reply #6 on: July 09, 2009, 10:29:50 pm »

No, interventionism and protectionism are not justifiable regardless of whether you want to call it a "war economy."

Oh, right. So, I suppose then that you'd not take any issue with Lockheed-Martin selling the latest scramjet technology to the Taliban?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.


I see. You will, naturally then, condemn the rebel attack on Fort Sumter as the initiation of a War of Southern Secession in the pursuit of the preservation of a socialist economic system, won't you? 

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh, of course. I'd forgotten that there were no other wars fought against slavery. How stupid I was to forget that the American Civil War was the only such one.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Don't try to change the subject, white trash. Do you or do you not deny that the antebellum slave system in the American South was a form of socialism? And do you therefore deny that your gap-toothed inbred ancestors were in fact fighting against modernizing capitalism and in favor of a backwards agrarian socialism?
Logged
Scam of God
Einzige
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,164
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.19, S: -9.91

« Reply #7 on: July 09, 2009, 10:36:58 pm »

Wow, Libertas is a mega FF. Keep up the good work! Glad to see someone is finally 150% correct around here. That's almost to the "t" my platform!
Thank you, glad there is someone else here with a sense of historical reality.

Just was trying to have a civil discussion but right away the Lincolnites drag the whole debate down into mud-slinging and childish insults.

Does it make you feel like any more of a man knowing that your ancestors were too lazy to work the land themselves, unlike mine, who were some of the first sodbusters in the region? Are you any more "proud of your heritage" when you realize that these lazy peckerwoods - quite in contrast to the industrious and individualistic laborers in the North - enslaved the "means of production" for collective use, like good, uneducated proletariat?
Logged
Scam of God
Einzige
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,164
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.19, S: -9.91

« Reply #8 on: July 09, 2009, 10:46:16 pm »

Certainly the poor Irish working 14 hours a day had loads of liberty in the great industrial north. I love how you just assume everything about Libertas w/out even knowing the first thing about him. Many very credible historians agree with a lot of the positions he has posted here.

And? They did it themselves, honestly. My ancestors understood that labor, and labor alone, produces anything of worth; and, in order to honestly earn what they valued, they produced it themselves. His ancestors, to the contrary, skirted honest work whenever feasible, and enslaved an entire people to avoid it.
Logged
Scam of God
Einzige
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,164
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.19, S: -9.91

« Reply #9 on: July 09, 2009, 11:02:34 pm »


Of course not. Because to feel otherwise would blemish your otherwise impeccable moron credentials.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because Lincoln's economic policies were exactly that, designed specifically to prevent American companies and American allies (chiefly Britain) from exporting goods to the Confederacy, and not, by any means, a long-term economic programme for peacetime? Ah, but realizing this would require subtlety on your part - something that inbreds are not, at all, known for.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wrong, jackass. Fort Sumter was attacked in the middle of negotiations, naturally bringing them to a stand-still. Lincoln's only mistake was in believing that the agrarian socialists would hold true to their word long enough for a compromise to be reached.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, I am, because you categorically claimed that

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I proved you wrong. Traitors seem least of all to like the truth, because they are in fact traitors to truth.

*snip puerile revanchism*

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Uh, yes, it's socialism in every way possible.

What is socialism? Mass control over the means of production. What were the 'means of production' in the antebellum, agrarian South? Slaves. Who had control over them? Whites. Hence, Southern slavery was agrarian socialism, and you are a collectivist and anti-individualist for supporting an economic system that rejects the right of self-ownership of the individual man over his own being.
Logged
Scam of God
Einzige
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,164
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.19, S: -9.91

« Reply #10 on: July 09, 2009, 11:15:10 pm »

So, statist policies are okay during wartime? That's sounds very neo-connish to me.

Presuming you want to, you know, win a war? Most certainly. That's why idiot paleocons like yourself would prove hilariously inept running any sort of military campaign, and ought to be kept away at all costs from such a position.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sumter was still the property of the United States government, dumbass. Would you like to justify to me the ethical validity of attacking your neighbor's property if it exists on your land?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Just like the death of millions of Soviet citizens would have been justified had it come to it, most certainly.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I understand that paleoconservatives like yourself are unthinking, unblinking, mindless drones designed to propagate whatever sort of rubbish Lew Rockwell vomits in your general direction, but you do yourself a disservice by refusing to at least think for yourself. No economic system that denies the right of self-ownership to any man is morally justifiable, and all of them are enemies of the capitalist state of affairs. By even attempting to justify slavery, you pave the way for socialism.
Logged
Scam of God
Einzige
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,164
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.19, S: -9.91

« Reply #11 on: July 09, 2009, 11:17:10 pm »

Wow, Libertas is a mega FF. Keep up the good work! Glad to see someone is finally 150% correct around here. That's almost to the "t" my platform!
Thank you, glad there is someone else here with a sense of historical reality.

Just was trying to have a civil discussion but right away the Lincolnites drag the whole debate down into mud-slinging and childish insults.

Does it make you feel like any more of a man knowing that your ancestors were too lazy to work the land themselves, unlike mine, who were some of the first sodbusters in the region? Are you any more "proud of your heritage" when you realize that these lazy peckerwoods - quite in contrast to the industrious and individualistic laborers in the North - enslaved the "means of production" for collective use, like good, uneducated proletariat?

Wow, so now one's ancestry is relevant to political debate? Very racist and collectivist.

Most certainly so. I am convinced that the world-historical laziness and lack of competence of Southerners is heritable, the result of a genetic bottleneck.
Logged
Scam of God
Einzige
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,164
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.19, S: -9.91

« Reply #12 on: July 09, 2009, 11:27:18 pm »

I thought you were a "non-interventionist"?

If someone tries to burn my property - even if it's on theirs - they can expect a full intervention of buckshot. Likewise--

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because Fort Sumter was bought and paid for by the Federal government, constructed using its monies, on land that it owned at the time of construction? I understand that pissant communists like yourself, because you reject property rights, feel free to attack the property of another; I am slightly more reserved than you are, in that I believe the Southerners had no right whatsoever to lay a finger on Federal property, regardless of whose land it was claimed to be on.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

If they attack my property in the name of their socialist economic system? Most certainly.

*snip socialist revanchism*
Logged
Scam of God
Einzige
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,164
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.19, S: -9.91

« Reply #13 on: July 09, 2009, 11:41:09 pm »

Um, protectionism had to do with tariffs and trade restrictions to make domestically-produced goods more competitive with foreign (primarily European) imports, and it went on long before the Confederacy and the war came into existence. Like other Northern Republicans, Lincoln would have advocated such an economic policy because it was politically advantageous to do so.

Wow. This... wow. What are they teaching you in the schools down there?

Lincoln's economic plan is well known. It entailed the temporary nationalization of industries related to the war effort (once more, to ensure that they did not supply the Confederacy with weapons or ammunition and to ensure the Federal government's monopoly over the same), along with plans to restructure the Southern economy towards an industrial focus, eventually integrating the Freedmen into the free-market structure.

On the whole, this is a remarkably non-statist economic platform for the time; in comparison, Brazil's conservatives completely nationalized all industries during its own civil war.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

See above. It's becoming increasingly apparent that you have no real knowledge of the issues involved whatsoever.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Uh, no. Lincoln received Southern emissaries prior to the Battle of Fort Sumter; he quite simply refused to recognize their independence, and justifiably so. Therefore the Southerners launched a war of aggression against the North.  

*snip socialist revanchism*
Logged
Scam of God
Einzige
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,164
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.19, S: -9.91

« Reply #14 on: July 09, 2009, 11:48:24 pm »

Even if I accept all of your bullsh**t about the Civil War, wouldn't the appropriate response be to recover the lost property, rather than killing hundreds of thousands of people that had nothing to do with the incident?

The rest of the South provided material and moral support to the terrorists who attacked Fort Sumter; ergo, they were responsible for the ensuing War.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Have you even read the Constitution, dipsh**t? Right there, in the Preamble, it states:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

How else is the Federal government, as made responsible for "domestic Tranquility" and the "common defense" in the Constitution, to do so without first establishing and ordering a military?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Quite frankly, yes. To the victor goes the spoils.
Logged
Scam of God
Einzige
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,164
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.19, S: -9.91

« Reply #15 on: July 10, 2009, 12:00:26 am »

That is ridiculous! You don't attack civilians for the actions of their government! You can't possibly know if the entire population supported their actions, so any attack on civilians is murder.

Ah, right. So you will therefore condemn Lee's 1864 invasion of Pennsylvania as an act of unwarranted aggression against United States civilians.

No?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hahaha, riiiiiight.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

So I am unjustified in defending my own property, even if nobody was killed in the course of its destruction?
Logged
Scam of God
Einzige
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,164
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.19, S: -9.91

« Reply #16 on: July 10, 2009, 12:04:07 am »
« Edited: July 10, 2009, 12:06:00 am by Einzige »

When you've gotten yourself this deep into a hole, it's generally a good idea to stop digging.

Right. Which is why I advise you to leave the thread posthaste.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

You will now, of course, provide evidence that Lincoln ran on an unduly 'protectionist' economic platform, and that this was the prime motivator for the War of Southern Secession?

Ah, wait, but you can't. Because Lincoln was not a protectionist, and in fact had joined the Whigs only hesitantly, at the behest of his law partner; his chief objection to them being their protectionism. The only economic ideas he had at all endorsed, in fact, were the Transcontinental Railroad and land-grants for colleges - hardly 'protectionism'.

*snip prattle*

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Uh, no. As I just said, Lincoln happily received the agrarian socialist envoy; he simply refused to give into their whining, and they forthrightly stormed out, tears welling in their eyes, and threw a hissy-fit like spoiled children that lasted five years.
Logged
Scam of God
Einzige
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,164
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.19, S: -9.91

« Reply #17 on: July 10, 2009, 12:10:17 am »

All attacks on civilians are unjustified. You have yet to condemn the war crimes commited by Union forces.

I'll do that just as soon as you revanchists reject the numerous assaults on American citizens by secessionists. I see that no apology is forthcoming, however.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sure, I disagree with many of the measures that Lincoln took in pursuit of the war, many of the same, in fact, that Bush took during his wars. But unlike the "War on Terror", the Civil War was eminently justifiable from a libertarian perspective.

And I will not even tolerate the notion that the Constitution is no longer applicable; suggesting such is tantamount to treason. 

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

When that right is granted to the State in its chartering document, then that State can own property.
Logged
Scam of God
Einzige
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,164
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.19, S: -9.91

« Reply #18 on: July 10, 2009, 12:38:15 am »

I already condemned their actions and will do so again if you deem it necessary. The Confederate Army commiting their share of crimes, and that is awful. However, at least they were not trying to coerce the other side into being their subjects, unlike the Union Army. So, yes, I condemn the Confederate Army's actions that harmed civilians.

Oh, not at all! They were only coercing slaves - human beings - into becoming property. That's not at all at odds with the basic libertarian principle of self-ownership, no siree!

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Fighting a war to preserve a socialist economic system that enslaves the individual man in order to recompense one's self from doing physical labor is not libertarian, either. Either become a libertarian or stop referring to yourself as one, as enslaving individuals against their will for one's material benefit is not libertarian.

Of course you don't have this problem, since you're quite clearly a communist. For that matter, I'd suggest you tone down your attitude with me, little boy.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I see no reason to subject myself to your socialist pipe-dreams, quite frankly.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hence the concept of popular sovereignty, which you'd know about if you'd actually spent time inside of a classroom.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Constitution is legitimate because it derives its support from the people. The people continue to support it; ergo, the Constitution is legitimate.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Article I, Section II quite clearly grants to Congress the power to collect taxes, with which to buy property. Please, try again.
Logged
Scam of God
Einzige
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,164
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.19, S: -9.91

« Reply #19 on: July 10, 2009, 12:42:15 am »

Continuing to just type whatever comes into your head? Your claims here have no basis in reality, and your link doesn't even mention trade policy.

During his time in Congress, Lincoln had a thoroughly protectionist, pro-tariff record. Lincoln ran in 1860 supporting the protectionist Morill Tariff and using the slogan "Protection to American Industry"; both his Democratic opponents opposed the Morill Tariff. And during his administration, Lincoln would sign two additional Morill Tariffs, each higher than the previous, into law.

Your ignorance is overwhelming, quite like, I imagine, the peculiar odor that rises from the fetid swamps of Louisiana on particularly balmy nights.

The Morill Tariff, you twat, was solely intended to raise funds for the United States military against the Confederacy - which it did. It was adopted on March 2, 1861 - nearly a full month after the Peace Conference I mentioned above fell through, and was pushed through after it became obvious that war was coming, as a means to ensure that the United States would have the funds to defend itself.

Sorry, try again.
Logged
Scam of God
Einzige
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,164
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.19, S: -9.91

« Reply #20 on: December 09, 2009, 08:08:39 pm »

Democratic: Thomas Woodrow Wilson

Republican: George Walker Bush

Whig: Millard Filmore

Democratic-Republican: John Quincy Adams

Federalist: John Adams
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

© Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Elections, LLC