The GREAT Presidents...

[BPSCG]

I understand that there are a lot of people who don't think much of FDR.

As it happens, I don't think much of Reagan, and that might put me in the minority.

And I like them both, which probably puts me in a tiny minority!

 

[shanek]

I disagree with Shane on this; I feel the rights of the slaves outweigh the lives of the governments allowing them to be enslaved, which would be the states.

When did I ever disagree with this statement? I just said it wasn't necessary to kill 600,000 people to do it.

It was on the way out, but I feel "on the way out" isn't a good excuse to let it die a natural death.

What about preventing 600,000 needless deaths?

 

[Sushi]

When did I ever disagree with this statement? I just said it wasn't necessary to kill 600,000 people to do it.



What about preventing 600,000 needless deaths?

I'm taking this as a hypothetical, of course, given that the cause of the Civil War wasn't directly slavery...

It depends on who those 600,000 are. Innocent bystanders? Yes, it is not worth freeing the slaves if you're going to kill 600,000 innocent random people. Soldiers fightening to keep slavery? No, since they are fightening to oppress other people.

If it's innocent deaths, I can see your point. I wouldn't kill one person to save 10, 100, or 1000 others (although it depends on the circumstances, such as whether I know the people involved, and other possibilities that are beyond this discussion).

 

[Tony]

Teddy tried a third term, I believe, under the Bull Moose Party since he was unsatisfied with Taft.

Yeah, I'm aware of that. But, unlike typical politicians, he kept his promise knowing it might have been a mistake. He put his personal integrity over politics.

Also, he was quite populist, if I recall correctly, so he, too, was not so great of a president.

Why does that make him "not so great"?

 

[BPSCG]

Also, this is the horrible, horrible president is the man who ORDERED THE JAPANESE (and other minorities in some places, I've heard) into CONCENTRATION CAMPS, making them lose their homes and their livelihood. Strange, I can think of German dictators who did something remotely similar, although obviously on a worse scale

This is BS.

What the Nisei went through was unjust, without question; their treatment is a stain on America's history.

But how dare you compare the internment camps with the Nazi death camps? Show me the pictures of the Nisei mass graves. Show me the remains of the gas chambers. Show me the Nisei with numbers tattooed on their arms. Show me the perverted medical experiments. Show me the gold harvested from their teeth.

 

[Sushi]

Yeah, I'm aware of that. But, unlike typical politicians, he kept his promise knowing it might have been a mistake. He put his personal integrity over politics.

Huh? I was taught it was customary for all of the presidents to step down after the second term on their own accord. When FDR didn't, they passed an amendment (good thing too, we didn't need any more of him).

TR didn't win again but he ran for a third term regardless.

Why does that make him "not so great"?

Because I dislike "trust-busting", etc etc. Appealing to the majorities at the expense of minorities or in the name of making things "fair"... I am not fond of that at all. I'm a laissez-faire capitalist. Don't turn this topic into a debate on that, please

 

[Sushi]

This is BS.

What the Nisei went through was unjust, without question; their treatment is a stain on America's history.

But how dare you compare the internment camps with the Nazi death camps? Show me the pictures of the Nisei mass graves. Show me the remains of the gas chambers. Show me the Nisei with numbers tattooed on their arms. Show me the perverted medical experiments. Show me the gold harvested from their teeth.

I said what the Nazis did was worse.

I am quite amused to see some attempt to lessen the "sin" because someone else did worse. I don't care what other tyrants did by comparison, each act will stand on its own. And Japanese internment, while not as bad as what the Nazis did, is ultimately the same method: putting certain races and ethnic groups in concentration camps.

So yes, while the Nazis did worse, they both did the same thing in regards to putting a popularly disliked race away.

 

[BPSCG]

I think shanek doesn't like Lincoln because he interefered with the slaveholders' property rights. We all know how important property rights are to him.

 

[Tony]

Huh? I was taught it was customary for all of the presidents to step down after the second term on their own accord.

You're aware of the conditions under which he became president during his first term, right?

Because I dislike "trust-busting", etc etc. Appealing to the majorities at the expense of minorities or in the name of making things "fair"... I am not fond of that at all. I'm a laissez-faire capitalist.

So you think the good of the few rich outweighs the good of the nation. One of the things that made TR great was that he bucked elitism and pursued populism. **** laissez-faire capitalism, that's what produced slavery, and robber barons.

 

[Sushi]

I think shanek doesn't like Lincoln because he interefered with the slaveholders' property rights. We all know how important property rights are to him.

That's the crappiest anti-Libertarian strawman I ever hear. If you're joking, I can't tell, because I've seen it used seriously, both here and elsewhere.

Slavery is a non-contractual agreement; Libertarians are all about consent.

 

[Sushi]

You're aware of the conditions under which he became president during his first term, right?

I can't recall what you're referring to, exactly. Refreshen my mind.

Anyway, all throughout history, all other presidents stepped down their second term. AND FDR DID run for a third term.

So you think the good of the few rich outweighs the good of the nation. One of the things that made TR great was that he bucked elitism and pursued populism. **** laissez-faire capitalism, that's what produced slavery, and robber barons.

Strawman. What I believe is that the property of the rich does not belong to the poor; and vice-versa. You're not entitled to be able to ride a train, make a telephone call for cheap, or get gas for 10 cents a gallon. In fact, nobody even has to sell it to you. If you're still willing to pay for it, even if the price is "high", then you're still benefiting by choosing to pay. If the price is too high, you'll find another alternative.

Just because you're rich and everyone else is poor does not mean that you owe other people money because they exist. In fact, if this is true, then if the population booms against your will you will owe all those others who need your money just because they are born, too.

You accusing laissez-faire capitalism of being the cause of slavery and of robber-barons shows that you neither know history nor what free market capitalism is.

 

[shanek]

**** laissez-faire capitalism, that's what produced slavery, and robber barons.

No, it didn't. Government produced those things. Learn some history, people. I'm tired of having to reeducate people every third thread.

 

[BPSCG]

That's the crappiest anti-Libertarian strawman I ever hear. If you're joking, I can't tell,

Okay, what do you think the at the end of my post was supposed to indicate?

Lighten up.

 

[Sushi]

Okay, what do you think the at the end of my post was supposed to indicate?

Lighten up.

Sorry; that argument HAS been used seriously so many places it's hard to tell, like I said. Fortunantly you can see why it's bunk, apparently-- others can't.

 

[H3LL]

I'm going for:

Levy Mwanawasa

Reasons:

1) Such a great name to get from a random google.
2) To show there are presidents that aren't American and there is a world out there beyond US borders.

 

[Ladewig]

Except that at the time of the Civil War, slavery was on the way out, even in the south. Mechanization was making it obsolete, and since the north mechanized first, it stands to reason they would abolish slavery first. The more agrarian south didn't start receiving the benefits of technological innovation until decades later, but it was beginning to happen. In fact, you could argue that slavery would have already been made obsolete by 1960 had it not been for the Fugitive Slave Act, which meant that government was then spending taxpayer money to catch fugitive slaves and bring them home and so the slave owners never had to incur the costs of chasing down runaways.

Could you explain how not having the Fugitive Slave Act would have made slavery obsolete? Wouldn't slave owners just guard their slaves more carefully to make sure that they didn't escape?

 

[Regnad Kcin]

I made a thread a couple of months ago called "Grade the Presidents." I went through and graded all the Presidents in order; I got up to FDR and then the thread mysteriously disappeared...

Re: Lincoln:

>COUGH< >SPUTTER< WHAT???? Comfortably in second? This guy arrests tens of thousands of American citizens in northern states without charge or access to an attorney, shuts down newspapers and puts editors in jail for having the audacity to print articles critical of the war, incites a race riot, ignores posse comitatus and uses the military against his own (again, northern) citizens, declares martial law and suspends habeas corpus, he had no problem dividing the country in half and destroying 600,000 lives to maintain his own megalomaniacal control...just what the ()*&^*% would a President have to do to earn your scorn? How can any honest person of integrity put Lincoln any higher than the bottom of a very putrid dungheap?

In that thread that "mysteriously disappeared" I showed you to be in error regarding your specific assertion that Lincoln "shuts down newspapers and puts editors in jail for having the audacity to print articles critical of the war..." You ignored my post.

Lincoln wasn't the saint his martyrdom helped create. But exaggerating to promote a point endears you to no one.

 

[hgc]

Re: Lincoln:In that thread that "mysteriously disappeared" I showed you to be in error regarding your specific assertion that Lincoln "shuts down newspapers and puts editors in jail for having the audacity to print articles critical of the war..." You ignored my post.

Lincoln wasn't the saint his martyrdom helped create. But exaggerating to promote a point endears you to no one.

To shane, sushi and their Big-L co-religionists, Lincoln is some kind of giant bugaboo. Since he's the guy who's war, which he apparently started by secretly attacking Fort Sumter, ended Federalism and created the modern behemouth, soul-crushing, freedom-robbing, property-zoning, income-taxing, trust-busting nation we have today.

Just witness how shane claims that government made slavery. So private interests had no stake in slavery? Government, and only government, created slavery? It couldn't ever stop it (even though it did)?

 

[Sushi]

To shane, sushi and their Big-L co-religionists, Lincoln is some kind of giant bugaboo. Since he's the guy who's war, which he apparently started by secretly attacking Fort Sumter, ended Federalism and created the modern behemouth, soul-crushing, freedom-robbing, property-zoning, income-taxing, trust-busting nation we have today.

Just witness how shane claims that government made slavery. So private interests had no stake in slavery? Government, and only government, created slavery? It couldn't ever stop it (even though it did)?

Oooooh someone's a democrat...

Why is state not allowed to leave the country? Since you apparently have this view, can you state why the states belong to the nation?

The issue of slavery aside, the government should be composed of states that make their own laws, not having a majority of other states dictate what programs and policies they must follow (although that's what happens today). Why can't they leave if they are getting a raw deal? Why can't, say, Hawaii (haha) decide to leave if they feel bullied?

I can't speak for shane, but the facts that governments and the people in those governments allowed slavery in the first place is the problem. I don't think it's right to say government made slavery, I would say it was people who made slavery with the government (composed of people who supported slavery) allowing it.

 

[Giz]

Quote ShaneK
"3) If we hadn't entered WWI, the victory would not have been as decisive, therefore, Britan and the allies wouldn't have been able to pass the horrible Treaty of Versailles; it's also less likely the Russian Revolution would have happened, or if it did, had been a victory for the Communists.

4) Without the Treaty of Versailles, the economic conditions which allowed the Nazis to come to power would not have existed. With no Communism in Russia, no Soviet Union would have been created.

Therefore:

If Lincoln hadn't invaded the Confederacy, then we very likely wouldn't have gone into WWI, and that would have likely meant no Nazis, and therefore no WWII, and no Communists in Russia, and therefore no Cold War (and no Korean War, Vietnam, no arming of Afghanistan and other places where the terrorists ended up popping up from...). It all goes back to Lincoln."

A couple of points to offer in mitigation of Lincolns grevious sins against slaveholding libertarian utopians...

1) The USA entered WW1 due to the Zimmerman telegram (in which the Germans - Herr Zimmermann, foriegn minister - ried to bring Mexico into an anti US alliance). If there had been a CSA facing an abridged USA along a long land border (mason dixon line?) you dont think that Herr Zimmermann might have addressed - perhaps succesfully - his telegram to Richmond?

2) The above point assumes that the CSA and USA would not have gone to war over the Western territories....

3) Did you stop to consider the misery that would have been caused by the southern dreams of creating a slave driven caribbean/south american empire?

4) Your faith in the South voluntarily mechanising is interesting... as early as 1830 various southerners had been warning about the Southern states lack of industrial development... strangely enough, your southern entrepeneurs were still dawdling by 1861... no doubt if they'd just been given another 6 months things would have been peachy...

5) Why do you think there wouldn't have been a communist victory in Russia? Perhaps because without the USA getting involved, the Germans could have annexed it ALL in Brest-Litovsk v2.1?

6) Versailles wasn't that bad - and reperations were a dead issue by the time the Nazi's got in.