WORST President? (Poll 1/3)

[Kludge]

Buchanan.

Good choice! He's not terribly well-known (I thought you were speaking of Pat at first...) but had many the same terrible ideologies held by Lincoln.

 

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Our nation is always in danger of reverting back to a master and slave caste system

Killing 600,000 Americans is OK, as long as there is some greater purpose behind it, right?

The purpose in fighting the American civil war was not to divide our nation into north and south but to further rid it of a caste system made up of masters and slaves. Such a primitive caste system was functioning peacefully in Africa prior to and after the civil war. We know this is true because Africa did not have a modern civilization.
The Union movement, the New Deal and the Civil Rights movements were also movements where millions of people died to eraticate the slave and the master caste system from our modern civilization.
So, it depends on what you desire really. Pretty women never have problems in acquiring their lipstick regardless of what government governs over them. Government has a specific social purpose to tend to the disadvantaged for this reason. If one happens to be born with a lot of natural ability and beauty, then one doesn't need to live in a modern civilization to prosper.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Uncle EW wrote:

Government has a specific social purpose to tend to the disadvantaged for this reason. If one happens to be born with a lot of natural ability and beauty, then one doesn't need to live in a modern civilization to prosper.

Whooaaa.

So, what you are saying is: freedom only works if you are beautiful, rich or both.

If you are neither, government must "level the playing field for you".

The other poster was right. You sure you are in the right forum?

 

[Kludge]

The purpose in fighting the American civil war was not to divide our nation into north and south but to further rid it of a caste system made up of masters and slaves. Such a primitive caste system was functioning peacefully in Africa prior to and after the civil war. We know this is true because Africa did not have a modern civilization.
The Union movement, the New Deal and the Civil Rights movements were also movements where millions of people died to eraticate the slave and the master caste system from our modern civilization.
So, it depends on what you desire really. Pretty women never have problems in acquiring their lipstick regardless of what government governs over them. Government has a specific social purpose to tend to the disadvantaged for this reason. If one happens to be born with a lot of natural ability and beauty, then one doesn't need to live in a modern civilization to prosper.

Lincoln had NO RIGHT to declare war on states who seceded within their rights.

If the Northerners didn't want the "slave caste system", they still have no right to kill others in an effort to assimilate them into their ideology.

 

[Kludge]

I still need 2 more presidents to move on to the 2nd poll.

 

[AutoDas]

The purpose in fighting the American civil war was not to divide our nation into north and south but to further rid it of a caste system made up of masters and slaves. Such a primitive caste system was functioning peacefully in Africa prior to and after the civil war. We know this is true because Africa did not have a modern civilization.
The Union movement, the New Deal and the Civil Rights movements were also movements where millions of people died to eraticate the slave and the master caste system from our modern civilization.
So, it depends on what you desire really. Pretty women never have problems in acquiring their lipstick regardless of what government governs over them. Government has a specific social purpose to tend to the disadvantaged for this reason. If one happens to be born with a lot of natural ability and beauty, then one doesn't need to live in a modern civilization to prosper.

Are you saying it's the government's duty to provide for the disadvantaged? I can understand sticking behind the Union movement and Civil Rights movement (not the actual act passed by Congress), but the New Deal worsened the plight for the poor. Stop throwing around the word, "slave;" it has an actual meaning and not your distortion that social Darwinism is slavery. Abraham had no interest in freeing the slaves.

 

[mmink15]

daddy dubya

 

[Anti Federalist]

"If I could save the Union without freeing a slave I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that."

"Honest Abe" in a letter to Horace Greely - 1862

 

[Anti Federalist]

I still need 2 more presidents to move on to the 2nd poll.

Hamilton and TR.

 

[Kludge]

"If I could save the Union without freeing a slave I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that."

"Honest Abe" in a letter to Horace Greely - 1862

Abe originally supported "colonization" or the "export" of slaves out of the country (not necessarily to Africa, just anywhere but here). He simply wanted the "problem" to "go away".

He picked this up from one of his political mentors, Andrew Hamilton (who contrasts on almost every policy with Jeffersion. Hence Jeffersonian and Hamiltonian.). Lincoln and Hamilton continually tried to push national banks, a battle they would have won if President (and later ex-communicated Whig Party member) John Tyler hadn't vetoed the bill.

 

[Kludge]

Hamilton and TR.

I'll take TR (Hamilton never won a presidential election).

 

[Anti Federalist]

Abe originally supported "colonization" or the "export" of slaves out of the country (not necessarily to Africa, just anywhere but here). He simply wanted the "problem" to "go away".

He picked this up from one of his political mentors, Andrew Hamilton (who contrasts on almost every policy with Jeffersion. Hence Jeffersonian and Hamiltonian.). Lincoln and Hamilton continually tried to push national banks, a battle they would have won if President (and later ex-communicated Whig Party member) John Tyler hadn't vetoed the bill.

Hence the nation of Liberia.

 

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

I think we might be arguing in agreement, but I'm game . . .

You call yourself a Ron Paul supporter?

The Presidency was setup to execute the laws of Congress and direct the military in times of war (which you can argue is redundant because war is in law). It wasn't meant to set laws or policy, except in cases of peace terms in war time and who they sent out to be ambassadors and consulars to nations.

I am not a lawyer nor am I an experienced law maker so please don't argue legal precedents with me. Instead, I am a political scientist who appreciates the self evident (natural law) truths about our unalienable rights (written into our human souls) in the Constitution.
This civil purpose I speak exists beyond all bipartisanship and political bickering. It was first realized by Socrates at great risk to his own life and while the vision was greatly expressed by his student Plato, it wasn't until the 18th century some 2200 years later that Jean Rousseau finally shined a light on its true significance. It was only then that the idea of great government was considered as a Social Contract between the government and the people.
So, the 3 branches of our government weren't set up to express the secondary purpose of creating meaningless legal precedents, but for the primary purpose of creating legal measures to implement the civil purpose in the Constitution to the people.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Buchanan.

Hmmm...Historians and the popular media tell me that Lincoln was the greatest and Buchanan was the worst. I gotta wonder...

I heard that Buchanan believed that the Federal government had no Constitutional right to force the States, or to declare war upon them. I wonder what Ron Paul's position would be if he were in Buchanan's predicament?

 

[Kludge]

Hmmm...Historians and the popular media tell me that Lincoln was the greatest and Buchanan was the worst. I gotta wonder...

I heard that Buchanan believed that the Federal government had no Constitutional right to force the States, or to declare war upon them. I wonder what Ron Paul's position would be if he were in Buchanan's predicament?

Courtesy Wikipedia:

"As Southern states declared their secession in the lead-up to the American Civil War, he held that secession was illegal, but that going to war to stop it was also illegal."

Interestingly, during the "Utah War", he send the army to quell a rebellion.

 

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Just how is Ron Paul's political philosophy different?

Uncle EW wrote:



Whooaaa.

So, what you are saying is: freedom only works if you are beautiful, rich or both.

If you are neither, government must "level the playing field for you".

The other poster was right. You sure you are in the right forum?

It is how the playing field was leveled that is significant. Before the time of Socrates, dynasties in primitive civilizations employed teachers to train the Prince to take his rightful place on the throne of his father -- as Aristotle trained Alexander the Great to do later on after his father died. This was how it was in Greece during that time although Athens did have a pagan form of Democracy. Still, as sophisticated as that might sound, it still wasn't accepted by people that the minds of the poor could improve if served rather than trained by teachers. That is where Socrates is written into the picture by Plato as a midwife philosopher to the poor.
Although modern civilization wouldn't take form until much later on, it is at this pivotal moment in history when the primitive caste system trained by teachers met face to face with the idea of teachers serving the public in a more modern society. Ultimately this new concept of teachers serving the public would lead to a more modern society with the masters and slaves eradicated.

 

[Anti Federalist]

I'll take TR (Hamilton never won a presidential election).

Quite right and I hang my head in shame.

 

[Kludge]

Quite right and I hang my head in shame.

Hehe.... I wrote down Hamilton at first too

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Interestingly, during the "Utah War", he send the army to quell a rebellion.

As we all know, even today, those darn polygamists have NO constitutional rights!

 

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

"Slave" is a derogatory word used against anyone who reminded others of lowly Slavs

Are you saying it's the government's duty to provide for the disadvantaged? I can understand sticking behind the Union movement and Civil Rights movement (not the actual act passed by Congress), but the New Deal worsened the plight for the poor. Stop throwing around the word, "slave;" it has an actual meaning and not your distortion that social Darwinism is slavery. Abraham had no interest in freeing the slaves.

Some people don't need government because they are born naturally with the ability to enjoy all the freedoms and rights that most of us take for granted as our civil rights. These people would be the natural masters of the world while they would hire trainers to teach their superior offspring to take their natural place in high society likewise.
Now an apposing view to this natural caste system was presented by Socrates who recognized that the poor could be taught to improve their happiness if teachers (natural philosophers) were willing to serve them.
Movements like the New Deal worked well at first before they eroded into a can of worms. This is why movements need constant refreshing with new measures while legal precedents should be discarded as distractions which can endanger the sovereignty of the Constitution.
How can the word "slave" have an actual meaning when it originated as a derogatory name, much like the "n" word, towards people who reminded others of the lowly Eastern European Slavs?
Social Darwinism was a philosophy developed by the ruling elite during the Great Depression. The philosophy argued that government shouldn't interfere in the business of wealth because they believed the false notion that the strong, rich people survived naturally in an economy while the weak, poor people perished. Of course, this isn't even what Darwin was arguing because many times the weaker freakish animal will be better suited to adapt to a radically changing environment.