WORST President (3/3)?

[Kludge]

Which of these three presidents do you feel has done the most damage to American individuals? This poll is not scientific and serves no real purpose except as a curiosity thread.

First Poll (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=134069)
Second Poll (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=134147)

[Bradley in DC]

All three would be fine candidates for the worst, but my money is on the court-packing, gold-grabbing, war monger FDR.

[sophocles07]

As I said in the other poll: Wilson. He is, if not the literal root, at least the modern root of the problem.

Though Roosevelt clearly sucks monkey-clunky balls as well.

[Fox McCloud]

Woodrow Wilson, without a doubt.

First off, he got us involved in WWI, which started the ideology for Americans that we needed to get involved in wars abroad where "someone was too powerful" or "being" a bully. After this involved, he wanted to get the US involved in the League of Nations, which I'm sure, you guys know, is a prequel to today's United Nations.

Then there's the fact that he signed the Federal Reserve Act, which destined (doomed) our economy to failure by allowing the government to print more money than there was gold...not to mention it is the only reason (and mechanism) that allowed for WWI, WWII, and any other war from that point on.

He also carried about the idea of "we have to make the world safe for democracy" which set the precedent for today's modern nation building and interventionist foreign policy.

He also set the ground-work for FDR....FDR's reign of economic terror (which sadly, everyone perceives as good); if Wilson hadn't been President, a lot of things would have never happened, and it's unlikely we would have had the depression, amongst other things.

[nate895]

Abe Lincoln. He was the one who made the first major, successful, assault on states' rights, and many individual rights (though he wasn't the first at that one). I also like that Ron Paul mentioned "The Real Lincoln" on his reading list.

[cindy25]

Truman and LBJ should be included in the poll

[nate895]

Truman and LBJ should be included in the poll

They didn't qualify in round 2.

[Carehn]

fdr

[ItsTime]

I cant wait to see how the press spins this one...

[nate895]

I cant wait to see how the press spins this one...

They already know we don't like them.

[Kotin]

once again FDR

[AutoDas]

Constitutionalists will choose Abe Lincoln, but as a libertarian I have to choose Wilson because without him there would have been no FDR, no 1929 market crash for him to use as his platform.

[Kludge]

Constitutionalists will choose Abe Lincoln, but as a libertarian I have to choose Wilson because without him there would have been no FDR, no 1929 market crash for him to use as his platform.

pfff... I recently got a 96/100 on a libertarian purity test. Abe paved the way for statists like Wilson.

[mdh]

I'm sticking with Lincoln. The original tyrant-president.

[qaxn]

ahhaha oh wow.
a lolbertarian alternate history would be the best thing ever.
us civil war's a no go, german empire wins wwi, revanchist france or uk goes to war against everyone, driving to the border of the soviet union and killing jews every mile and conquers or is conquered by the soviets, either of which empires continues onto the present day.
but at least the 37 united states still have the us constitution in effect. assuming they aren't invaded and annexed.

[RedLightning]

Last time I voted for FDR, but I'm going with Wilson because of WW1 and The League of Nations.

[Kludge]

ahhaha oh wow.
a lolbertarian alternate history would be the best thing ever.
us civil war's a no go, german empire wins wwi, revanchist france or uk goes to war against everyone, driving to the border of the soviet union and killing jews every mile and conquers or is conquered by the soviets, either of which empires continues onto the present day.
but at least the 37 united states still have the us constitution in effect. assuming they aren't invaded and annexed.

<.< >.>

A vote's a vote...

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Which of these three presidents do you feel has done the most damage to American individuals? This poll is not scientific and serves no real purpose except as a curiosity thread.

First Poll (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=134069)
Second Poll (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=134147)

Donate to Murray yet...? (http://www.murraysabrin.com/)

In an attempt to distort the results in a way I'd prefer, I'd just like to let you know I'm voting for Abraham Lincoln - and that Abraham Lincoln led an unnecessary war that caused the death of ~5% of all Americans. Even during the emancipation, he opposed freeing the slaves and cited it as being a necessary political evil - even failing to include the emancipation of slaves located in certain Union-controlled areas. Abraham Lincoln was the backer of one of the first pushes of nationalized banking in conjunction with Hamilton and Henry Clay. Abraham Lincoln was also a member of the Whig Party, one of the original parties standing for almost nothing except statism. This doesn't even scratch the surface of what Abraham Lincoln, the original American Tyrant did to what could only be described as his people.

Oh for cripes sake!:rolleyes:

[Kludge]

Could this thread serve to subvert Americans from reading books about true history?

"true history"....? Lol.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Constitutionalists will choose Abe Lincoln, but as a libertarian I have to choose Wilson because without him there would have been no FDR, no 1929 market crash for him to use as his platform.

How can a Libertarian not be for a Constitutional government? With this really odd and extremist hatred for both Abraham Lincoln and FDR, how can people not view this Ron Paul revolution as really odd and extremist?
Fortunately, the truth doesn't need to be learned because it is both "self evident" beyond any scientific theory or legal argument while it is written "unalienable" on our soul's conscience.

[forsmant]

Here is the new poll, same as the old poll.

[buffalokid777]

I would choose King George Bush the 2nd.....

But since that isn't an option i'm going woodrow wilson.....as his actions allowed King George the 2nd to destroy america like he has,,,,,,,

[Fox McCloud]

I propose that this poll close long before May 20th....you'll pretty much tap this one out by the end of next week (or at the least, the middle to middle-end of the following week after next :P).

[Kludge]

I propose that this poll close long before May 20th....you'll pretty much tap this one out by the end of next week (or at the least, the middle to middle-end of the following week after next :P).

Can't change polls once added :(

Less someone had intentions to quote the results for some reason, I can't imagine it'd make a terrible amount difference anyways....

[MS0453]

How can a Libertarian not be for a Constitutional government? With this really odd and extremist hatred for both Abraham Lincoln and FDR, how can people not view this Ron Paul revolution as really odd and extremist?
Fortunately, the truth doesn't need to be learned because it is both "self evident" beyond any scientific theory or legal argument while it is written "unalienable" on our soul's conscience.

FDR made ownership of gold illegal and allowed for the imprisonment of Japanese-American citizens. These things would seem to me to be very evident. I'm not sure what condition your conscience is in, but I find such things do be deplorable. Perhaps you disagree with this. Maybe the self-evident simply evades me. But please feel free to defend either action. Maybe I'm just acting odd or lack an understanding of real history.

[Chibioz]

I chose FDR but it's a close call. I hate Woodrow Wilson too for helping the federal reserve wrap it's nasty tentacles on the USA.

[buffalokid777]

For the last two posters.....

What FDR did....couldn't have happened unless woodrow wilson did what he did.....he is the greater of the evils imo.....

[Kludge]

For the last two posters.....

What FDR did....couldn't have happened unless woodrow wilson did what he did.....he is the greater of the evils imo.....

Wouldn't have happened if Lincoln didn't nullify-thru-war states' rights to peacefully secede, which would have limited the arrogance of the federal branches.

[Fox McCloud]

For the last two posters.....

What FDR did....couldn't have happened unless woodrow wilson did what he did.....he is the greater of the evils imo.....

Agreed 100%; Wilson was a unique animal all of his own that changed the face of America more than we know it, in my honest opinion.

Lincoln did a lot of damage too, but we still went back to some of our original Constitutional policies after he was gone....Wilson? Never the same.

[LiveFree79]

Abe Lincoln. He was the one who made the first major, successful, assault on states' rights, and many individual rights (though he wasn't the first at that one). I also like that Ron Paul mentioned "The Real Lincoln" on his reading list.

The Real Lincoln is arguably one of the worst fucking books ever written. It's filled with so much fiction and shit taken out of context. If Ron Paul calls The Real Lincoln a great book LMAO......I've lost a lot of respect for the guy. Some of you "libs" need to get a clue and drop the revisionist history.

If you want a good read on the history of banking check out Web of Debt by Ellen Brown. Especially if you liked the Creature of Jekyll Island.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

FDR made ownership of gold illegal and allowed for the imprisonment of Japanese-American citizens. These things would seem to me to be very evident. I'm not sure what condition your conscience is in, but I find such things do be deplorable. Perhaps you disagree with this. Maybe the self-evident simply evades me. But please feel free to defend either action. Maybe I'm just acting odd or lack an understanding of real history.

As I am considered a client -- one who is incompetent in representing him/herself in matters concerning the law -- I really can't comment on the legal precedents concerning the ownership of gold or the imprisonment of Japanese-American citizens.

On the other hand, as a citizen, I can understand the Constitution because it was written on a level that is both "self evident" and "unalienable." Because "these truths" reduced themselves down to the equivalent of a natural law or a law of nature, our founding fathers established the sovereignty of the Constitution beyond any legal, scientific, epistemological, philosophical or metaphysical argument.

The significance of a natural law, metaphysically speaking, is that it was a conclusion established in itself beyond all other opposing theories. It wasn't necessary for opposing theories to exist in those days because it was believed that evidence could be reduced in logical terms to a level which was undeniable.

It was important for our founding fathers to establish a natural law because establishing an undeniable conclusion was necessary to combat the king's tyranny. If certain truths from God were written unalienably onto the soul of human beings, then such self evidence would supercede the king's authority. This argument was necessary to establish because the book of Romans in the New Testament clearly claimed that a king's sovereignty should be worshipped by Christians as the equivalent of God's authority.

This is why our founding fathers immediately took up the matter of the King's tyranny in the Declaration of Independence.

As I stated in a prior post, both Abraham Lincoln and FDR were masterful in how they freed the slaves and bound the masters in their respected periods. The civil purpose in the Constitution was to establish a "positive" government after all with every citizen in the new nation ideally sitting at the dinner table. While the master and slave classes of the primitive caste systems were multileveled; with the king holding far greater power in the system than the least member of the master class and, likewise, the least slave in the system holding far lessor power than the greatest slave, then erosions back to the tyranny of a primitive caste system, economically speaking, should be considered nothing more than the abolishment of the middle class.

This is why it is important to differentiate between the secondary importance of the legal precedents that were necessary for the functioning of the Constitution and the primary importance of the civil purpose itself in the Constitution. When the political issues we bicker about are based on a foundation of legal precedents, we lose our souls by becoming clients; whereas, when we focus on civil purpose, we find our souls as American citizens.

[Aratus]

i'd tell them to run the federal gov't at the EXACT same levels and size it was in their day!
you see FDR's gov't would be bigger than honest abe's and he could have wilson as an advisor!
whereas honest abe would have us all bring back ex-gov bill mckinley as his sec' of war!

don't you think w.wilson and FDR to be brainier than both barack obama an' hillary clinton?
and as to john mccain verses abraham lincoln, i'd prefer to vote for abe lincoln in THAT primary!

after all, you didn't quite say WHERE i am as i possibly could vote for these candidates!
even if i might even do a RON PAUL write-in on our historic POTUSes under this hypothetical!

[Aratus]

now if they all made it easier for me as a erudite voter by not running at the same time... bliss!
i think the current crop of candidates to be highly interesting in a merrie will rogers sort of way
when i think them not to be totally stupid and blind to sometimes the totally f~iNg OBVIOUS!!!
dr. ron paul is the only ACTIVE candidate right now who knows there is something not being said

[Aratus]

poor james buchanan got my vote in the first poll. he could not stop history from going into our books.

[josephadel_3]

Could someone explain to me why we are right, and the rest of the world is wrong or misinformed? I like the idea of being right, but Lincoln and Roosevelt are presidents highly regarded by the general public. My grandmother considered Abe Lincoln a hero. I grew up with picutres of him in her house.

Most people will call me crazy if I say Lincoln was the worst president of all time. (I would argue for George W., obviously, but this poll is before W.) It verges on blasphemy in their eyes.

My U.S. history teacher recently went on a rampage about people who say Lincoln never needed to fight the civil war, and blah blah blah. His response was something like this, which I will paraphrase, "You better be grateful Lincoln was there, because when you're a slave it's not fair to be a slave for 20, 30 more years." He basically said without the civil war, slavery would have lasted too much longer. I didn't know how to respond, although it wasn't required since I didn't bring it up. His justification for Lincoln fighting the war was slavery, and it amazes me he has still failed to mention other causes of the war.

Anyways, why are we so enlightened and the rest of the world, stupid? Why was Lincoln such a bad president? I know from day one in school he has been praised. I don't immediately eat up the bullshit that is fed to me daily. I own "The Real Lincoln" but haven't read it yet. I just finished "April 1865" which is generally favorable of Lincoln.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Could someone explain to me why we are right, and the rest of the world is wrong or misinformed? I like the idea of being right, but Lincoln and Roosevelt are presidents highly regarded by the general public. My grandmother considered Abe Lincoln a hero. I grew up with picutres of him in her house.

Most people will call me crazy if I say Lincoln was the worst president of all time. (I would argue for George W., obviously, but this poll is before W.) It verges on blasphemy in their eyes.

My U.S. history teacher recently went on a rampage about people who say Lincoln never needed to fight the civil war, and blah blah blah. His response was something like this, which I will paraphrase, "You better be grateful Lincoln was there, because when you're a slave it's not fair to be a slave for 20, 30 more years." He basically said without the civil war, slavery would have lasted too much longer. I didn't know how to respond, although it wasn't required since I didn't bring it up. His justification for Lincoln fighting the war was slavery, and it amazes me he has still failed to mention other causes of the war.

Anyways, why are we so enlightened and the rest of the world, stupid? Why was Lincoln such a bad president? I know from day one in school he has been praised. I don't immediately eat up the bullshit that is fed to me daily. I own "The Real Lincoln" but haven't read it yet. I just finished "April 1865" which is generally favorable of Lincoln.

The greatest thing about books is that we can't possibly read most of them.

That aside, I wouldn't say that you are crazy. Like most of us you have lost your soul as an American. To regain our souls as Americans we need a movement. The benefits of that kind of American movement wouldn't be the countless legal measures that we would most certainly bicker about later on; rather, the benefit of the movement would be how it would both reconsecrate and redefine our characters as Americans.

The American character itself is the greatest danger against erosions towards tyranny.

[josephadel_3]

So why are we "right" and why are they "wrong"?

[Kludge]

Bump.

[FreeTraveler]

So why are we "right" and why are they "wrong"?

Two words: Government Schools.

From the perspective of a union-led indoctrination organization that wants to see people willingly submit to authority, fail to recognize their own slavery, cheerfully do as they are told, follow all the popular trends instead of thinking for themselves, and offer themselves and their children up as cannon fodder whenever the need for Empire arises, Lincoln, Wilson, and FDR ARE GREAT presidents. They each did a commendable job of getting rid of parts of that pesky Constitutional government that stood between you and enslavement.

From the perspective of individuals who seek Liberty, they were terrible presidents.

Remember, textbooks, teachers, the whole operation is controlled by people who consider your enslavement under their control the proper course of humanity.

[LiveFree79]

Two words: Government Schools.

From the perspective of a union-led indoctrination organization that wants to see people willingly submit to authority, fail to recognize their own slavery, cheerfully do as they are told, follow all the popular trends instead of thinking for themselves, and offer themselves and their children up as cannon fodder whenever the need for Empire arises, Lincoln, Wilson, and FDR ARE GREAT presidents. They each did a commendable job of getting rid of parts of that pesky Constitutional government that stood between you and enslavement.

From the perspective of individuals who seek Liberty, they were terrible presidents.

Remember, textbooks, teachers, the whole operation is controlled by people who consider your enslavement under their control the proper course of humanity.


Yeah and people on this board who despise Lincoln read a couple of revisionist books on history .......The Real Lincoln and Lincoln Unmasked and now all of a sudden are experts on Abraham Lincoln, the Civil War and the Constitution. Give me a break. Libertarians are starting to sound like the same brainwashed Republicans and Democrats they so despise. Some of you sound like anarchists.

[FreeTraveler]

Yeah and people on this board who despise Lincoln read a couple of revisionist books on history .......The Real Lincoln and Lincoln Unmasked and now all of a sudden are experts on Abraham Lincoln, the Civil War and the Constitution. Give me a break. Libertarians are starting to sound like the same brainwashed Republicans and Democrats they so despise. Some of you sound like anarchists.

Why thank you! Some of us don't consider anarchist a bad word, and the fact that you do tells me more about you than I care to know.

Actually, I responded to ask if you have any factual response to my post, or if you were just defending what you learned in school without any facts to back it up. The opportunity to thank you for recognizing me as an anarchist is just icing on the cake.



Anarchy, in its broadest sense, refers to the situation in which a human society exists without Government.


How terrible that sounds, a society without a group of thugs who claim the right to terrorize and even kill people if they don't do as they are told.

[LiveFree79]

Why thank you! Some of us don't consider anarchist a bad word, and the fact that you do tells me more about you than I care to know.

Actually, I responded to ask if you have any factual response to my post, or if you were just defending what you learned in school without any facts to back it up. The opportunity to thank you for recognizing me as an anarchist is just icing on the cake.



How terrible that sounds, a society without a group of thugs who claim the right to terrorize and even kill people if they don't do as they are told.

I'm not going to give you a detailed book report on the two books by DiLorenzo which among his and others is where most of this hogwash comes from. His books are as bad as the ones that glorify Lincoln. I suggest you actually read the books first. Secondly, you may not have a problem with being an anarchist but it has nothing to do with a Constitutional Republic. America is a country of laws......even our founding fathers knew this. Many countries across the world have lived in pseudo-anarchist societies and have failed miserably. History shows this. As society gets more complex and as more people inhabit the earth there will always be a need for government of some sort. Just like a child is always better raised by a mother and a father. Sorry that's science not wishful thinking. There where always need to be some sort of collective regulation and oversight by groups of people over other groups of people in order to limit human greed and other negative aspects of human nature.

[FreeTraveler]

Blah, blah, blah... typical statist apologia. Like I said, you learned your lessons well in that government indoctrination camp. You are doing nothing but proving my case with this regurgitation of popular opinion.

Just one example: a country of LAWS? lolololol. Explain the murderous bastards who got medals for murdering Vicky Weaver. How about the Chicago cops that just got off for murdering an unarmed man with over 50 shots fired in his direction? How about hundreds of erroneous home invasions and not one cop convicted of wrongdoing.

Is that kool-aid good?


I'm not going to give you a detailed book report on the two books by DiLorenzo which among his and others is where most of this hogwash comes from. His books are as bad as the ones that glorify Lincoln. I suggest you actually read the books first. Secondly, you may not have a problem with being an anarchist but it has nothing to do with a Constitutional Republic. America is a country of laws......even our founding fathers knew this. Many countries across the world have lived in pseudo-anarchist societies and have failed miserably. History shows this. As society gets more complex and as more people inhabit the earth there will always be a need for government of some sort. Just like a child is always better raised by a mother and a father. Sorry that's science not wishful thinking. There where always need to be some sort of collective regulation and oversight by groups of people over other groups of people in order to limit human greed and other negative aspects of human nature.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

So why are we "right" and why are they "wrong"?

It has to do with truths being held by our founding fathers as "self evident" and "unalienable." This carefully established truth written in the Declaration of Independence reduced down to a natural law or what is also referred to as a law of nature.

First off, we have to go back all the way to Galileo when he was being persecuted by the Catholic Church for challenging Aristotle to understand what is going on. During this time the Catholic Church had adopted the prior discovered works of Aristotle as God's natural laws. They actually read Aristotle's works as if they were divine scripture during this time.

Anyway, Aristotle was an empirical scientist in that he backed all of his evidence with experience. In oder to prove that the earth was not rotating, Aristotle dropped a stone off a tower to see if it would fly away from its wall because of the earth's rotation.

Aristotle figured the following:

Major premise: The earth is rotating.
Minor premise: The stone is falling towards the center of the earth. (Aristotle did not believe in gravity. He believed that heavy things with "violent" motion fall towards the center of the earth while lighter things with "natural" motion like the orbiting moon and sun floated in an orderly fashion further away in space).
Conclusion: So, the stone should fly away from the wall of the tower.

What Galileo countered with was the following:

Major premise: The earth is rotating.
Minor premise: The stone has motion relative to the earth's motion.
Conclusion: So, the stone falls straight along the wall of the tower.

Anyway, this caused the world to take a second look at the use of logic. Rather than completely scrapping it, logical mathematicians like Descartes and Spinoza reconsidered the problem. While Descartes argued that we shouldn't even trust the evidence that we can observe with our 5 senses (I think therefore I am), Spinoza argued that the "final" cause in Aristotle's 4 causes should be dropped from consideration when explaining science linguistically.

Science ultimately compromised by narrowing its conclusions down to dropping the use of such terms as 'all' from such statements as "all men are mortal." To be on the safe side, one should never use such absolute terms.

Anyway, this leads up to the point in history where science believed that it could create a metaphysical conclusion. An example of this type of conclusion would be tic - tac - toe. In the game of tic - tac - toe, one doesn't need to learn to be logical; rather, one needs only to learn the metaphysical rules as how to play the game to always win the game with at least a tie.

This is a much different kind of conclusion than the kinds today that incorporate theories because no opposing theory was thought necessary. It was because of competing nations that opposing theories even got created.

For example, the theory of Lamarckian evolution in France was a challenge to the theory of Darwinian evolution in Britain.

So, why were our founding fathers right and the others wrong? It was because they reduced the truth down to a natural law. Such a self evident Declaration had no opposing theory because its truths reduced unalienably into the conscience of every human soul.

[sophocles07]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5293571786020772615&q=black+panther+party&ei=5O0bSP2QPJm-qQKtnLTEAg&hl=en

Watch that

I'm drunk, and got on this line of idiotic videos; this is funny; I can't believe these videos exist. This shit is funnny.

[sophocles07]

"Yeah, you'll have to go."

[sophocles07]

"Gah...."

[Kludge]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5293571786020772615&q=black+panther+party&ei=5O0bSP2QPJm-qQKtnLTEAg&hl=en


Were I not fearing the racist label, I'd put it in my sig.

[LiveFree79]

Blah, blah, blah... typical statist apologia. Like I said, you learned your lessons well in that government indoctrination camp. You are doing nothing but proving my case with this regurgitation of popular opinion.

Just one example: a country of LAWS? lolololol. Explain the murderous bastards who got medals for murdering Vicky Weaver. How about the Chicago cops that just got off for murdering an unarmed man with over 50 shots fired in his direction? How about hundreds of erroneous home invasions and not one cop convicted of wrongdoing.

Is that kool-aid good?


Kool-Aid? sounds like you drink plenty of it as you have the mentality of a 10 year old. Sorry to burst your bubble son but life is not a utopia. There will always be bad people, corrupt politicians/cops, and injustice in this world. Anarchy is not the answer. We can go back to the cowboy and indian days.....or we can even live like nature where the weak shall die and the strong shall survive...every man for himself....is that what you'd like? It's unfair to criticize government on a whole for the actions of a few. Yes there are major problems with the U.S. government. But anarchy? Come on! That's like taking a step back 2000 years.

[Sidestreamer]

Abraham Lincoln was the right man for the time, but if he came up for election today, I'd find him almost as frightening as our current president.

The other two are fine by my book.

[nate895]

Abraham Lincoln was the right man for the time, but if he came up for election today, I'd find him almost as frightening as our current president.

The other two are fine by my book.

Umm, killing hundreds of thousands of Americans, both in uniform and inncoents, is the right thing to do when someone exercises a Constitutional right?

[FreeTraveler]

Kool-Aid? sounds like you drink plenty of it as you have the mentality of a 10 year old. Sorry to burst your bubble son but life is not a utopia. There will always be bad people, corrupt politicians/cops, and injustice in this world. Anarchy is not the answer. We can go back to the cowboy and indian days.....or we can even live like nature where the weak shall die and the strong shall survive...every man for himself....is that what you'd like? It's unfair to criticize government on a whole for the actions of a few. Yes there are major problems with the U.S. government. But anarchy? Come on! That's like taking a step back 2000 years.

Okay, let's see. How much of your hard-earned assets have you lost to crooks, excluding government crooks? How much has been taken from you by the government crooks?

I am not criticizing government for the actions of a few, I'm criticizing every government employee for their theft of my production, their arrogance in assuming that they can better determine it's use than I can, and the fact that they hide behind some fictional "greater good" as they smugly invade my pocketbook.

Can you honestly say that you get anywhere near value for the prices they charge? Would you willingly step up and pay the prices they charge for the meager services they offer?

If "people are bad" is the answer to the question "why do we need govt" then how do you assure that the bad people don't gravitate to the LEGITIMIZED THEFT AND POWER that the govt represents?

Are people really bad? Do you have trouble trusting your neighbors, or other people that you get to know? Of course not, it's the nameless "others" that the govt wants you to fear, and expect protection from.

If govt is about protecting people, how come police departments are not held responsible for protecting people? If govt is about protecting people, then why are crimes against "the state" and not the victims? If govt is about protecting people, why is the judicial system about retribution instead of restitution?

Read some history of the "wild west" and you'll find it wasn't as "wild" as it's portrayed on TV. ALL crime rates were a fraction of what they are today. Problems with "bad guys" were settled locally, and quickly. The black markets that funded the Mafia during Prohibition and currently are funding inner-city gangs during the War on Drugs wouldn't exist without your precious government telling people they can't buy some particular product.

Do you live an "every man for himself" existance except where constrained by law? How lonely that life must be.

If man is inherently evil and needs control, as you seem to believe, how can you believe that some group of men that declares themselves in charge of other men will suddenly be good?

Why would you willingly choose to turn the power of life and death over to a group of men, just because they say they know how things need to be done? Have you no sense of self-responsibility or self-worth?

Once upon a time, I was a Statist, believe it or not. I've lived long enough now to realize some basic truths. Not all men are evil, but evil men seek power over others as well as unearned wealth. The most fertile ground in existence for breeding and cultivating evil is government, which is BASED on power over others and the reappropriation of unearned wealth.

The world is made of two kinds of people... producers and moochers. Believing anything else is fooling yourself.

Garden-variety moochers can be dealt with by shunning, personal self-defense, or, in the worst cases, the county sherriff. Government-sponsored moochers apparently can't be dealt with short of the Second Amendment.

So government is good... why???

On edit: Sorry for the threadjack, but some things just had to be said. :)

[Danke]

...
So government is good... why???

On edit: Sorry for the threadjack, but some things just had to be said. :)

Nice post.


I assume you are familiar with:

"The Law"
by Frederick Bastiat

[FreeTraveler]

Nice post.


I assume you are familiar with:

"The Law"
by Frederick Bastiat

Yes, but it's been a long time. Thanks for the compliment.

[Sidestreamer]

Umm, killing hundreds of thousands of Americans, both in uniform and inncoents, is the right thing to do when someone exercises a Constitutional right?

Constitutional right to secede from the union?

Considering the alternative and the plantation economy the South wanted to preserve... yeah, I say that's the blood that fertilizes the tree of liberty.

[Kludge]

Constitutional right to secede from the union?

Considering the alternative and the plantation economy the South wanted to preserve... yeah, I say that's the blood that fertilizes the tree of liberty.

Well fuck - what are we doing trying to revert back to principles thru politics?

Let's kill some shit.

[Sidestreamer]

Well fuck - what are we doing trying to revert back to principles thru politics?

Let's kill some shit.
Hyperbole. Our nation isn't literally splitting up.

[FreeTraveler]

Hyperbole. Our nation isn't literally splitting up.

You really believe that? Driven through Harlem or Watts at night lately?

[nate895]

Constitutional right to secede from the union?

Considering the alternative and the plantation economy the South wanted to preserve... yeah, I say that's the blood that fertilizes the tree of liberty.

Yes there is a Constitutional right to secede. The states were independent bodies that created the Constitution, and they were sovereign. Nothing in the Constitution says they lost their sovereignty, and any sovereign body can withdraw from a compact if it wishes. That is what the South did, they rescinded their ratification of the Constitution and then attempted to assert their independence. They were attacked and vilified for doing so. While slavery might have been a contributing factor, it was not the end-all, be-all. It probably would have happened with or without slavery in the picture, slavery only served to hasten the coming of those events. The problems between the north and south are so many (and they still exist to this day, if you look into it) that it takes both sides adhering to the Constitution for them to be satisfied to be in Union. They are like the pairing of England and Scotland, tenuous at best with one side holding all the cards and the other one looking for an excuse out of the game.

[josephadel_3]

Yes there is a Constitutional right to secede. The states were independent bodies that created the Constitution, and they were sovereign. Nothing in the Constitution says they lost their sovereignty, and any sovereign body can withdraw from a compact if it wishes. That is what the South did, they rescinded their ratification of the Constitution and then attempted to assert their independence. They were attacked and vilified for doing so. While slavery might have been a contributing factor, it was not the end-all, be-all. It probably would have happened with or without slavery in the picture, slavery only served to hasten the coming of those events. The problems between the north and south are so many (and they still exist to this day, if you look into it) that it takes both sides adhering to the Constitution for them to be satisfied to be in Union. They are like the pairing of England and Scotland, tenuous at best with one side holding all the cards and the other one looking for an excuse out of the game.

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the Confederate Army attack first at Fort Sumter? Or was the attack a result of intimidation from the Federal Army?

[nate895]

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the Confederate Army attack first at Fort Sumter? Or was the attack a result of intimidation from the Federal Army?

This is one of the most amazing thrillers from the war. First, Sumter was an uncompleted fort with no garrison when South Carolina seceded. The garrison in the area was located at nearby Fort Moultrie, a few nights later (somewhere around Christmas, give or take a couple days) the officer in charge (Major Anderson of Kentucky) ordered his men under cover of night to take the more strategically strong point at Ft. Sumter. It was a stronger position since Moultrie was vulnerable to land assault, while Sumter would be able to attack any incoming vessel since it was on its own island. This action was against the orders of President Buchanan, who wanted to negotiate a solution. This move by Maj. Anderson enraged South Carolinians, but they lived with it for the time being. Lincoln initially sent down an ambassador who promised President Davis and Governor Pickens of South Carolina that the fort would be given over soon. However, Lincoln was a shrewd politician who knew that the South needed to fire the first shot. He knew the South wouldn't be the aggressor, but he could be the aggressor while they still fired the first shot. Instead of giving over the fort, which was attempting to enforce the tariff in a foreign country, he ordered a resupply of the fort. In early April, the CSA government learned of this through their commissioners in DC. Lincoln said it was only food, but the South suspected it was a trick since food itself would have been a trick since the fort was supposed to be vacated soon. Also, the CSA couldn't stop the ships without firing upon them from shore since their navy was virtually nonexistent. Because of this, Beauregard, under orders from Pickens, against Davis's wishes, gave an ultimatum for Sumter to surrender, and it didn't, so they fired upon the fort and it eventually surrendered to Beauregard, ending the first military action of the war.

[HenryKnoxFineBooks]

It could be argued that the administrations attempt in April 1861 to resupply and reinforce the garrison at Sumpter, which had stood since SC seceded in Dec. 1860. President James Buchanan had tried to resupply the garrison in January, with The Star of the West, but the ship turned away when the Confederates fired warning shots at her. President Lincoln sent several ships with equipment and men in April. As these ships were assembling off Charleston Bar, to run the Harbor, THATS when the confederates opened fire.

Plenty of blame to spread around.

[HenryKnoxFineBooks]

Damn, NAte beat me to it, and did a better job of it as well!


I'm a slow typer

[Sidestreamer]

You really believe that? Driven through Harlem or Watts at night lately?

Harlem? Three weeks ago. Why?

[Sidestreamer]

Yes there is a Constitutional right to secede. The states were independent bodies that created the Constitution, and they were sovereign. Nothing in the Constitution says they lost their sovereignty, and any sovereign body can withdraw from a compact if it wishes. That is what the South did, they rescinded their ratification of the Constitution and then attempted to assert their independence. They were attacked and vilified for doing so.
Eh, hold on there. The south fired the first shot on Fort Sumter when Union forces did not abandon it on demand. That's what started the hostilities of the civil war.
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/cwphtml/tl1861.html


While slavery might have been a contributing factor, it was not the end-all, be-all. It probably would have happened with or without slavery in the picture, slavery only served to hasten the coming of those events.

Whether you believe the Civil War was one about slavery and human rights or if it was about economics, the plantation economy of the south ran on slaves, and without slaves, it would have been devastated.

What other threats did the north give to the south's economy other than the slavery issue?



The problems between the north and south are so many (and they still exist to this day, if you look into it) that it takes both sides adhering to the Constitution for them to be satisfied to be in Union. They are like the pairing of England and Scotland, tenuous at best with one side holding all the cards and the other one looking for an excuse out of the game.
Adhere to the Constitution and the north and south will keep together? How, exactly?

I'll agree with one of your points; politically, the north/midwest/Pacific and the South/Heartland/Mountain West are split. Culturally, I think the split's exaggerated.

ETA: the real split is among socioeconomic classes, and to a lesser extent between management levels in the business sector.

[nate895]

Eh, hold on there. The south fired the first shot on Fort Sumter when Union forces did not abandon it on demand. That's what started the hostilities of the civil war.
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/cwphtml/tl1861.html

Whether you believe the Civil War was one about slavery and human rights or if it was about economics, the plantation economy of the south ran on slaves, and without slaves, it would have been devastated.

What other threats did the north give to the south's economy other than the slavery issue?

Adhere to the Constitution and the north and south will keep together? How, exactly?

I'll agree with one of your points; politically, the north/midwest/Pacific and the South/Heartland/Mountain West are split. Culturally, I think the split's exaggerated.

Look at my time line of the events surrounding Ft. Sumter and you'll find that Lincoln tricked the South.

The South seceded because of the extremely high tariff that Lincoln wanted to impose. The tariff financed the Feds, and it was almost purely Southern cash heading into Northern pork. That was the budget of the Federal Government, it was basically a tariff which affected the South, with little impact on the North, and the money was spent by the Northern dominated Congress on infrastructural projects north of the Mason-Dixon line. The South would have had a thriving agricultural economy with or without slavery. Slaves were merely the workforce, which they did try to free, but freeing 3 million people is hard business that no one could find a solution to.

Adhering to the Constitution helps to preserve the Union because it means the North doesn't use its numerical majority to push through programs the South doesn't like.

The cultural differences between the regions are there, and can be seen if you look. The NE is urban-based culture that likes hip-hop and pop-type music and it values money a lot. The SE is rural culture that likes country, with some Southern Rock mixed into there and they tend to not care so much about money as they do as about having good time on Friday night. The Upper MW is an industrial culture that struggles to get by and just likes to sit back and enjoy a game on Sunday. The MW is a rural culture that is less social because things are a million miles apart and focuses a lot on family life. The west is split between the Mountains and the Pacific. People who live in the Western Mountains (MT, CO, UT, NV, ID, AZ, NM, and parts of CA, OR, and WA) love the free range and strive to breathe fresh and free air. The Pacific Coast is the NE with western influences, basically.

[Kludge]

bump

[RevolutionSD]

Has to be ol Woody Wilson:

1) Federal Reserve
2) Income Tax
3) World War I
4) CFR

Not necessarily in that order, but Wilson's term was the beginning of the end of America as it was founded.

[nate895]

Has to be ol Woody Wilson:

1) Federal Reserve
2) Income Tax
3) World War I
4) CFR

Not necessarily in that order, but Wilson's term was the beginning of the end of America as it was founded.

That was Lincoln.

[RevolutionSD]

That was Lincoln.

I agree Lincoln was horrible too and the civil war did touch of a lot of evil stuff, but I think Wilson was the one who killed off the USA with all the damage he did. Let's face it they're all bad, every last one of them, even George Washington.

We'd be better off without presidents altogether. It's totally unnecessary and only causes death and destruction of freedoms.

[nate895]

I agree Lincoln was horrible too and the civil war did touch of a lot of evil stuff, but I think Wilson was the one who killed off the USA with all the damage he did. Let's face it they're all bad, every last one of them, even George Washington.

We'd be better off without presidents altogether. It's totally unnecessary and only causes death and destruction of freedoms.

What did TJ do?

[LiveFree79]

I agree Lincoln was horrible too and the civil war did touch of a lot of evil stuff, but I think Wilson was the one who killed off the USA with all the damage he did. Let's face it they're all bad, every last one of them, even George Washington.

We'd be better off without presidents altogether. It's totally unnecessary and only causes death and destruction of freedoms.

You're an idiot. It's funny to see all you anarchists claiming to be avid RP/Libertarian supporters.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

I agree Lincoln was horrible too and the civil war did touch of a lot of evil stuff, but I think Wilson was the one who killed off the USA with all the damage he did. Let's face it they're all bad, every last one of them, even George Washington.

We'd be better off without presidents altogether. It's totally unnecessary and only causes death and destruction of freedoms.

Would it be better to live in a peaceful society where everyone has to sit at seperate master and slave tables or would it be better to live in a more violent society where everyone is ideally brought together to sit at the same dinner table? These peaceful caste systems were the types that existed in most of the world including Western Africa before the advent of a modern slave trade.
The drawback to living under the rule of a caste system in Africa was that the different tribal chiefs would fight amongst themselves. As slaves from losing tribes were captured and incorporated into the winning one, their values diminished more to the point that they were viewed even less than slaves as outcasts and untouchables.
Our nation has had a long history of class struggle with the dinner table threatened to be split back into this type of a primitive caste system with a slave class ruled over by a master class.

[mtmedlin]

I'll take Wilson on this one. Lincoln screwed up under intense pressure and was one of the presidents during our infancy. I give him a little margin because the US wasnt as defined. FDR again made mistakes but I understand a president watching his nation starve to death and making some radical decisions. I dont mind some of his programs IF he had sunset them. At times socialist policy can be useful in order to get through a rare moment, like a deep depression but the continuation of those policies as a countermeasure to its reoccurance was short sighted and will eventually cause more damage then good.

[mtmedlin]

What did TJ do?

there is alot of debate on the Lousiana Purchase. He technically sidestepped the intended law and found a way to make the purchase even though he essentially made a new route for presidents to do what they want even though the constitution really didnt intend for him to do it. Overall though, he was one of the best.

[HOLLYWOOD]

The Latest on Abraham Lincoln... 1809-2009 also covered on C-SPAN's Washington Journal

javascript:playClip('rtsp://video.c-span.org/archive/lincoln/linc_wj021208_holzer.rm') (javascript:playClip('rtsp://video.c-span.org/archive/lincoln/linc_wj021208_holzer.rm'))

The Lincoln Bicentennial Commission:

http://www.lincoln200.net/ (http://www.lincoln200.net/)

[nate895]

there is alot of debate on the Lousiana Purchase. He technically sidestepped the intended law and found a way to make the purchase even though he essentially made a new route for presidents to do what they want even though the constitution really didnt intend for him to do it. Overall though, he was one of the best.

I am of the opinion that the Louisiana Purchase was Constitutional. It was a treaty, and the Constitution grants a broad power of treaty to the Federal Government. It didn't specify what a treaty must be pursuant to, just that you can make one. The Constitution does imply, however, that it cannot further delegate powers from the Federal Government to a higher body.

[Kludge]

Bump. Less then a week left >.>

[Godbag]

I dont really consider any of these men as presidents... more like puppets... which puppet do i think was most easily controlled... probably Wilson... although he showed some regret later on for passing the federal reserve act(a c#@* with a concsience)... i think a better question would be which INDIVIDUAL has done the most harm to the USA?.. has to be a banker...

[american.swan]

I'll say FDR because I think some of Abe Lincoln's problems are taken out of context. There was a lot of conflict he had to work through and I don't buy all the propaganda. Even in US history books what Abe said is cut short, taken out of context, and distorted.

Abe was personally against slavery. I think he felt his position didn't allow him to single handedly do anything about it.

I could be wrong but that's just want I get from what I read.

[nate895]

I'll say FDR because I think some of Abe Lincoln's problems are taken out of context. There was a lot of conflict he had to work through and I don't buy all the propaganda. Even in US history books what Abe said is cut short, taken out of context, and distorted.

Abe was personally against slavery. I think he felt his position didn't allow him to single handedly do anything about it.

I could be wrong but that's just want I get from what I read.

That's the problem. He went to war to subjugate an erstwhile free people. The South wasn't some boogey-man who made up the whole state sovereignty argument because of wanting to keep blacks enslaved, they first used it (they had always thought it) over the Alien and Sedition Acts, which had nothing to do with slavery. What Lincoln did was unconstitutional and inhumane.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

That's the problem. He went to war to subjugate an erstwhile free people. The South wasn't some boogey-man who made up the whole state sovereignty argument because of wanting to keep blacks enslaved, they first used it (they had always thought it) over the Alien and Sedition Acts, which had nothing to do with slavery. What Lincoln did was unconstitutional and inhumane.

I would never question that professors teach their students only that which is absolutely true. So, I think the problem lies in the memories of the professors themselves when after they shrewdly introduced to their students 2 of the greatest Presidents as evil bastards instead, in order to incite learning by playing devil's advocate no less, they totally forgot later on to reveal the real truth to them before class was let out for the summer.

[american.swan]

That's the problem. He went to war to subjugate an erstwhile free people. The South wasn't some boogey-man who made up the whole state sovereignty argument because of wanting to keep blacks enslaved, they first used it (they had always thought it) over the Alien and Sedition Acts, which had nothing to do with slavery. What Lincoln did was unconstitutional and inhumane.


I dig what your saying. The war was completely about slavery. The Union soldiers sang songs denouncing slavery as they marched. Of course the history books gloss over that.

I highly recommend the new updated version of "Lies My Teacher Told Me".

The North should have let the South go. Even if they were leaving for a stupid reason, slavery, they still had the right to go.

[freedom-maniac]

BUSH! BUSH! BUSH!

And then maybe Lyndon Johnson if he was on that poll too.

Why? Because both of them fought preemptive wars. Wilson, Lincoln, and Roosevelt went to war after peace efforts had been exhausted, and the U.S. attacked.

[weslinder]

I dig what your saying. The war was completely about slavery. The Union soldiers sang songs denouncing slavery as they marched. Of course the history books gloss over that.

I highly recommend the new updated version of "Lies My Teacher Told Me".

The North should have let the South go. Even if they were leaving for a stupid reason, slavery, they still had the right to go.

That is a horribly one-sided view of history. The Civil War was sold to the Union soldiers about freeing the slaves, because they couldn't sell it on reclaiming a opressed people.

Secession won in the South, not because of slavery, but because of tariffs. The South was paying for 87% of government revenue, while the North got the majority of Federal funds spent there. Southerners were being exploited for the benefit of the Northern industrialists. The rest of the world recognized this fact, and wrote about it. It's silly to throw out all of those writings because of a marching song.

Lew Rockwell's take: http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/civilwar.html

[AmericaFyeah92]

FDR certainly wasn't one of our best...but one of our WORST? I don't think so..

U guys know how popular he was at his time? Elvis had nothing on this guy...just saying.

The founders did say "govern with the consent of the governed." So if the general populace liked FDR's agenda back then, who are we to judge? We aren't starving from a depression and facing two super-enemies at once like they were

[HOLLYWOOD]

That is a horribly one-sided view of history. The Civil War was sold to the Union soldiers about freeing the slaves, because they couldn't sell it on reclaiming a oppressed people.

Secession won in the South, not because of slavery, but because of tariffs. The South was paying for 87% of government revenue, while the North got the majority of Federal funds spent there. Southerners were being exploited for the benefit of the Northern industrialists. The rest of the world recognized this fact, and wrote about it. It's silly to throw out all of those writings because of a marching song.

Lew Rockwell's take: http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/civilwar.html

So true.... the import/Export Tariffs of that day were the cause for secession. Abe & Company "USED" the people for political and war advantages. The disruptions of south with press (media) and people (slaves) would empower the north to end the war sooner and a Union victory.

Abe Lincoln didn't care and preferred to... "Ship the Slaves Back to Africa... he prefered the white race to be superior, and he did not believe that the two races could ever live together." That, combined with the authorization for the military to conduct Genocide on the Confederacy by the UNION army, especially General Sherman's "Scorched-Earth Actions" of southern communities and people. (BTW, numerous general have been imprisoned/executed for similar/same actions over the centuries)

talk about a presidential slime ball Abe truly was and that history can turn all of the above around to make himself look like a savior. With an address (GETTYSBURG) and strategic/tatcical military moves. Of course all the messes were "ERASED"with a little help of the government "polishing" over the decades, to twist and distort for maximum heroic effectiveness.

[Danke]

FDR certainly wasn't one of our best...but one of our WORST? I don't think so..

U guys know how popular he was at his time? Elvis had nothing on this guy...just saying.

The founders did say "govern with the consent of the governed." So if the general populace liked FDR's agenda back then, who are we to judge? We aren't starving from a depression and facing two super-enemies at once like they were

Yeah, and Bush won two terms. So what? We are looking back at cause and effect. History, with evidence not readily available to the masses of their day. That is not what the majority necessarily has knowledge of at the time of voting.

I think Hitler was popular and elected.

[AmericaFyeah92]

So true.... the import/Export Tariffs of that day were the cause for secession. Abe & Company "USED" the people for political and war advantages. The disruptions of south with press (media) and people (slaves) would empower the north to end the war sooner and a Union victory.

Abe Lincoln didn't care and preferred to... "Ship the Slaves Back to Africa... he prefered the white race to be superior, and he did not believe that the two races could ever live together." That, combined with the authorization for the military to conduct Genocide on the Confederacy by the UNION army, especially General Sherman's "Scorched-Earth Actions" of southern communities and people. (BTW, numerous general have been imprisoned/executed for similar/same actions over the centuries)

talk about a presidential slime ball Abe truly was and that history can turn all of the above around to make himself look like a savior. With an address (GETTYSBURG) and strategic/tatcical military moves. Of course all the messes were "ERASED"with a little help of the government "polishing" over the decades, to twist and distort for maximum heroic effectiveness.


the confederates, on the other hand, were very nice people who only wanted the best for the common man (assuming that man wasn't a ni**er)

:rolleyes:

[Danke]

---

[klamath]

Wilson without a doubt. I think people are focusing on just the effects these presidents had on the US. Add the effects to this country and the world, Wilson wins hands down. Without tipping the balance of WWI, WWII would never have happened. You guys are whining about one little civil war. WWI and the fallout from it are still happening today in Iraq when the British created that country's boundries on what they thought was best not what the local populations felt.
With out tipping the balance in WWI the red revolution probably would have never happened in Russia. WWII would never have been. korean War would never have been. Vietnam would never have been. The cold war would have never been.
The cost of the wars of the 20th century just in human life is over 100,000,000. I don't think Lincoln can hold a candle to that.
We are not even talking about the ecconomic effects of the creation of the FED and other far reaching things Wilson brought into effect.

[AmericaFyeah92]

Yeah, and Bush won two terms. So what? We are looking back at cause and effect. History, with evidence not readily available to the masses of their day. That is not what the majority necessarily has knowledge of at the time of voting.

I think Hitler was popular and elected.

Yes, but both of these individuals lost their popularity. FDR remained popular throughout his stay in office, which says something.

[AutoDas]

Since when is popularity a measure of a President's term in office? I'd be populist president too if I offered them "free" services in a jingoistic America.

[Mr. Coolidge]

Ah shoot, I did it wrong.

"Which president caused the most harm to American individuals?"
Abraham Lincoln. (It's hard to make light of what Roosevelt wrought, but I guess Lincoln set up higher hurdles.)

"Which president caused the most harm to individuals?"
Woodrow Wilson. At the beginning of the 20th century his ideas were seen as wacky, idealistic, and naive. Over the next 100 years, they have come to be accepted, practically worldwide, as necessary goals of the highest importance. It is unfortunate for humanity that Woodrow Wilson ever held as influential a position as he did. Clearly, the 20th century was his century.