5 Best and Worst Presidents in American History?

[steveox]

The Worst

1) Barack Obama
2) George Bush II
3) William Clinton
4) George Bush II
5) Ronald Raygun

The Best

None

Comrade Stalin

You spelled Reagan wrong bud

 

[Apathy]

I will buy you a first class seat one way to Norh Korea.

You have proven yourself more worthy of that ticket than I. You have shown your support for imprisoning dissentors.

 

[Apathy]

1)No. Arguing with insanity would mean I am insane.

2)But lets try to find a new home for you to escape to. I am just trying to help you out. You know...I just really have a need to help anti-Americans emigrate.

Maybe Mexico would work. Its a real free for all down there. Maybe a libertarian like you would like it. What do you think?

1) Ok then argue with me because I agree your straw man is pretty insane.

2) Just because I dont let blind patriotism cloud my judgement doesnt mean I am anti american. I say I am more american than you. You obviously show very little respect for the first amendmant by wishing to deport those who disagree. Who is the statist now?

3) There is a difference between big "L" and small "l" Libertarianism look it up I am not a libertarian im a Libertarian. So again you mislabeled me. Furthermore Mexico is not a free for all and who ever told Libertarians wanted a "free for all" lied to you.

 

[dogtowner]

Best
Washington
Jefferson
Coolidge
Reagan

Worst
Lincoln
Obama (hard to beat a guy who was willing to kill 500k+ Americans for purely political reasons)
Carter
FDRoosevelt
Wilson
USGrant (for being willing to kill those Americans for Bloodthirsty Abe)

 

[Apathy]

Best
Washington
Jefferson
Coolidge
Reagan

Worst
Lincoln
Obama (hard to beat a guy who was willing to kill 500k+ Americans for purely political reasons)
Carter
FDRoosevelt
Wilson
USGrant (for being willing to kill those Americans for Bloodthirsty Abe)

Interesting you should put Lincoln in the bottom 5 I dont like him for my own reasons. What are yours?

Also can you elaborate on Obama wanting to kill 500k people for political reasons?

 

[steveox]

Yeah Lincoln freed the slaves. And LBJ should go down the bottom too

 

[Apathy]

Yeah Lincoln freed the slaves. And LBJ should go down the bottom too

Lincoln had no intention of freeing any slaves. Lincoln had suspended habeas corpus and imprisoned dissentors. The man was a tyrant any imagined freeing of the slaves was purely a political move.

" My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery."

- Abraham Lincoln

Also Lincoln emancipation proclamation freed exactly 0 slaves the proclamation only covered the states that seceded and they didnt exactly recognize his authority.

 

[Rick]

Lincoln had no intention of freeing any slaves. Lincoln had suspended habeas corpus and imprisoned dissentors.

The constitution ALLOWS that: See Article One, Section 9, clause 2. Lincoln was well within his rights, and did so because it appeared Maryland would secede after the civil war started, leaving DC surrounded by the enemy.

Also Lincoln emancipation proclamation freed exactly 0 slaves the proclamation only covered the states that seceded and they didnt exactly recognize his authority.

It was limited in that way, because he was >>LEGALLY LIMITED<< to only the states in rebellion, if by executive order. A general emancipation required a constitutional amendment.

You need to read some actual history instead of merely regurgitating standard Lincolln defamations.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Lincoln had no intention of freeing any slaves. Lincoln had suspended habeas corpus and imprisoned dissentors. The man was a tyrant any imagined freeing of the slaves was purely a political move.

" My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery."

- Abraham Lincoln

Also Lincoln emancipation proclamation freed exactly 0 slaves the proclamation only covered the states that seceded and they didnt exactly recognize his authority.

but he did want to end it, but no it was not his main goal ...and it was only given full power when politically needed....and it freed them all...just had to kick to finish kicking the Souths ass for it to take effect. it may not have freed them that day, but it freed them

 

[Apathy]

1)The constitution ALLOWS that: See Article One, Section 9, clause 2. Lincoln was well within his rights, and did so because it appeared Maryland would secede after the civil war started, leaving DC surrounded by the enemy.



2)It was limited in that way, because he was >>LEGALLY LIMITED<< to only the states in rebellion, if by executive order. A general emancipation required a constitutional amendment.

3)You need to read some actual history instead of merely regurgitating standard Lincolln defamations.

1) Just because you can do something doesnt mean you should. Im sure that you would except the same criticism as a valid one for say Wilson.

2) Yes he was legally limited to do nothing brilliant excuse.

3) Coming from the man who's last 200 posts were GOP talking points.

 

[dogtowner]

but he did want to end it, but no it was not his main goal ...and it was only given full power when politically needed....and it freed them all...just had to kick to finish kicking the Souths ass for it to take effect. it may not have freed them that day, but it freed them

No, he wanted them shipped elsewhere, anywhere. Racist in the textbook definition. It freed none, the Amendment passed years later did that.

 

[dogtowner]

Interesting you should put Lincoln in the bottom 5 I dont like him for my own reasons. What are yours?

Also can you elaborate on Obama wanting to kill 500k people for political reasons?

I hope Obama does not seek to beat Lincoln's record. I pointed out that this is a large reason why Obama will likely never overtake Lincoln as worst. They are very much on a par in most other matters with the scope of Obama's plunder vastly larger.

Isn't killing 500k+ Americans to insure the continuance of the Whig/Republican party enough ? But you already seem to know something of his unconstitutional shenanigans.

 

[Gipper]

I agree Lincoln was one of the worst.

A great book that exposes the truth of Old Honest Abe...by Thomas DiLorenzo...is

and this by the Great Walter Williams on DiLorenzo's great book...

In Federalist Paper 45, Madison guaranteed: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." The South seceded because of Washington's encroachment on that vision. Today, it's worse. Turn Madison's vision on its head, and you have today's America.

DiLorenzo does a yeoman's job in documenting Lincoln's ruthlessness and hypocrisy, and how historians have covered it up. The Framers had a deathly fear of federal government abuse. They saw state sovereignty as a protection. That's why they gave us the Ninth and 10th Amendments. They saw secession as the ultimate protection against Washington tyranny
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams032702.asp

 

[Rick]

1) Just because you can do something doesnt mean you should. Im sure that you would except the same criticism as a valid one for say Wilson.

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

He did it in exactly the circumstances for which it was put into the constitution. Your position is like someone complaining that he used a hammer to pound in a nail.

2) Yes he was legally limited to do nothing brilliant excuse.

Leftwingers, who support uber-statism, can I supposed be excused from thinking a president can act like a dictator if he gets the whim, as well as their general ignorance of law, the constitution, and american history.

3) Coming from the man who's last 200 posts were GOP talking points.

Whaaaaaaaaaatttttttt???????

 

[Apathy]

1)He did it in exactly the circumstances for which it was put into the constitution. Your position is like someone complaining that he used a hammer to pound in a nail.



2)Leftwingers, who support uber-statism, can I supposed be excused from thinking a president can act like a dictator if he gets the whim, as well as their general ignorance of law, the constitution, and american history.



Whaaaaaaaaaatttttttt???????

1) Is it right to imprison those who disagree? You can say its constitutional until you are blue in the gills but is it right?

2) Ad hominem irrelevant to the point being made.