WORST President (3/3)?

[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 ).

 

[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 ).

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]

We really have to think on another level

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]

how could i justify voting for these 3 potuses in MY lifetime by the poll's rules?

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]

I wouldn't call you crazy

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.