Group Project: Let's Rank The Presidents and Summarize Their Presidencies

[Massachusetts]

I think it's easier to start at the bottom of the list and go up. There have been a significantly larger pool of poor presidents to pick from compared to good presidents.

 

[Origanalist]

Originally Posted by John F Kennedy III

Just did some research on Lincoln. It's hard to imagine someone worse than him.
--------------------------
Yes, the Northern Aggressor is by far and indisputably the worst.
-----------------------

Lincoln the tyrant is the man we can thank for the monster called dc. If there had been no Lincoln, could there have been a FDR?

 

[John F Kennedy III]

Yes, the Northern Aggressor is by far and indisputably the worst.

I haven't researched them yet, but I think Wilson and FDR at least come damn close.

 

[John F Kennedy III]

Originally Posted by John F Kennedy III

Just did some research on Lincoln. It's hard to imagine someone worse than him.
--------------------------
Yes, the Northern Aggressor is by far and indisputably the worst.
-----------------------

Lincoln the tyrant is the man we can thank for the monster called dc. If there had been no Lincoln, could there have been a FDR?

Good point.

 

[TheTexan]

I haven't researched them yet, but I think Wilson and FDR at least come damn close.

Would there have even been a Wilson or FDR, if not for Lincoln?

edit: looks like I'm late with my post~

 

[Galileo Galilei]

I think it's easier to start at the bottom of the list and go up. There have been a significantly larger pool of poor presidents to pick from compared to good presidents.

I guess I don't get it. The first 27 presidents, more than half, did little in office (besides Lincoln). The Federal government used up only about 2% of the GNP, and unlike today, most of it was used for a useful rather than wasteful purpose. Basically, the US had a very very small central government that most people never encountered. It operated a court system, kept people safe from Indians and pirates, and sent ambassadors to other nations. Not much else. Besides Lincoln and maybe TR, all the other presidents were pretty happy with this set up.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

Would there have even been a Wilson or FDR, if not for Lincoln?

edit: looks like I'm late with my post~

Actually, the federal budget dropped to only 1.75% of the federal budget by 1912. This was actually a smaller central government than when the AoC were in operation. Lincoln's damage was temporary and was balanced by freeing slaves, while what Wilson did was not balanced by anything positive.

 

[Massachusetts]

I think it would be fantastic if we could get a reading list for this project. I'm sure every President has a piece of literature regarding their policies. Maybe each person could read one or two of the books, then report back with a summary of the facts, accounts, etc. Then we can vote on which Presidents rank where from that.

 

[TheTexan]

Actually, the federal budget dropped to only 1.75% of the federal budget by 1912. This was actually a smaller central government than when the AoC were in operation. Lincoln's damage was temporary and was balanced by freeing slaves, while what Wilson did was not balanced by anything positive.

No, Lincoln fought not to free the slaves, but to "preserve the union." What this in effect means, is that if your state believes the constitution is being ignored, and all political efforts to resolve this has failed, you are essentially without recourse. "Deal with it", Lincoln would say today.

Secession is the mechanism which keeps the Constitution to its word. Without the threat of secession, we get to, well.. where we are today.

This precedent of the inseverable union has done unimaginable damage to our country. This extends also to nullification, which has been repeatedly shot down by the supreme court. States will continue to try nullify, though, and it will continue to get shot down. At some point these states will say enough is enough, and simply try to secede again, and we're right back to where we started in 1861.

Abraham Lincoln essentially set us back 150 years.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

No, Lincoln fought not to free the slaves, but to "preserve the union." What this in effect means, is that if your state believes the constitution is being ignored, and all political efforts to resolve this has failed, you are essentially without recourse. "Deal with it", Lincoln would say today.

Secession is the mechanism which keeps the Constitution to its word. Without the threat of secession, we get to, well.. where we are today.

This precedent of the inseverable union has done unimaginable damage to our country. This extends also to nullification, which has been repeatedly shot down by the supreme court. States will continue to try nullify, though, and it will continue to get shot down. At some point these states will say enough is enough, and simply try to secede again, and we're right back to where we started in 1861.

Abraham Lincoln essentially set us back 150 years.

Who cares what Lincoln fought for? The slaves got freed and it happened under Lincoln's watch. You think the black people gave a shit about your theories?

 

[Origanalist]

Who cares what Lincoln fought for? The slaves got freed and it happened under Lincoln's watch. You think the black people gave a shit about your theories?

The slaves would have been freed regardless. The Western World in general was waking up to the crime that is slavery and new technologies were making slave labor obsolete.

I care what Lincoln fought for. He fought for complete control by a central authority.

 

[TheTexan]

Who cares what Lincoln fought for? The slaves got freed and it happened under Lincoln's watch. You think the black people gave a shit about your theories?

The Constitution has since been trampled on, and for the past 150 years there has been no recourse, and that's why we now have a Federal Reserve printing trillions and giving it to the rich, why we have endless wars, why people are killed in their own homes over a plant, why we're told what we can eat, what we can drink, on, and on, and on...

His war may have incidentally freed the slaves, but in doing so he enslaved America. The slaves in the South would have been freed eventually, either migration to the North, or by other socioeconomic factors.

His war was not worth it. Not at all.

 

[John F Kennedy III]

I think it would be fantastic if we could get a reading list for this project. I'm sure every President has a piece of literature regarding their policies. Maybe each person could read one or two of the books, then report back with a summary of the facts, accounts, etc. Then we can vote on which Presidents rank where from that.

Great idea. Are there any websites that would be good resources for studying the presidents?

 

[Galileo Galilei]

The slaves would have been freed regardless. The Western World in general was waking up to the crime that is slavery and new technologies were making slave labor obsolete.

I care what Lincoln fought for. He fought for complete control by a central authority.

Baloney. The South still had Jim Crow laws 100 years later, and they had to end those kicking and screaming.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

The Constitution has since been trampled on, and for the past 150 years there has been no recourse, and that's why we now have a Federal Reserve printing trillions and giving it to the rich, why we have endless wars, why people are killed in their own homes over a plant, why we're told what we can eat, what we can drink, on, and on, and on...

His war may have incidentally freed the slaves, but in doing so he enslaved America. The slaves in the South would have been freed eventually, either migration to the North, or by other socioeconomic factors.

His war was not worth it. Not at all.

Totally wrong. There were no changes in the Constitution when Lincoln was president.

 

[John F Kennedy III]

Who cares what Lincoln fought for? The slaves got freed and it happened under Lincoln's watch. You think the black people gave a shit about your theories?

What part of it is theory?

And you should research Lincoln more. He doesn't deserve any credit or praise.

 

[TheTexan]

Totally wrong. There were no changes in the Constitution when Lincoln was president.

Well, seeing how you won't even read what I write this is clearly a waste of my time

 

[LibertyEagle]

Case Study in history:

On June 4, 1963, a virtually unknown Presidential decree, Executive Order 11110, was signed with the authority to basically strip the Bank of its power to loan money to the United States Federal Government at interest. It also decree a returned to the federal government, specifically the Treasury Department, the Constitutional power to create and issue currency -money - without going through the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank. President Kennedy's Executive Order 11110 [the full text is displayed further below] gave the Treasury Department the explicit authority: "to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury." This means that for every ounce of silver in the U.S. Treasury's vault, the government could introduce new money into circulation based on the silver bullion physically held there. As a result, more than $4 billion in United States Notes were brought into circulation in $2 and $5 denominations. $10 and $20 United States Notes were never circulated but were being printed by the Treasury Department when Kennedy was assassinated. It appears obvious that President Kennedy knew the Federal Reserve Notes being used as the purported legal currency were contrary to the Constitution of the United States of America.

"United States Notes" were issued as an interest-free and debt-free currency backed by silver reserves in the U.S. Treasury. We compared a "Federal Reserve Note" issued from the private central bank of the United States (the Federal Reserve Bank a/k/a Federal Reserve System), with a "United States Note" from the U.S. Treasury issued by President Kennedy's Executive Order. They almost look alike, except one says "Federal Reserve Note" on the top while the other says "United States Note". Also, the Federal Reserve Note has a green seal and serial number while the United States Note has a red seal and serial number.

President Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963 after 2 days LBJ reverse this Executive Orders. Also President Johnson passed NSAM 273 on November 26, 1963. It reversed Kennedy's decision to withdraw US troops and exit Vietnam, and reaffirmed the policy of assistance to the South Vietnamese Government.

This is a fallacy. Please read this: http://www.freedomforceinternational.org/freedomcontent.cfm?fuseaction=jfkmyth&refpage=issues

 

[Origanalist]

Baloney. The South still had Jim Crow laws 100 years later, and they had to end those kicking and screaming.

"There is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."

Abraham Lincoln

 

[Galileo Galilei]

"There is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."

Abraham Lincoln

you actually believe what Lincoln says? I don't.