Total Posts:39|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Worst President in History (pre-Bush/Obama)

DoctorZhiva90
Posts: 27
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2011 9:27:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Just wondering everyone's opinions on this, and I'd like to see who people nominate other than Bush and Obama, who often seem to be argued as the worst. I'd say that maybe this is an effect of the serial position effect, since they are the most recent. My vote goes to Lyndon Johnson. After reading up on him I firmly believe that he royally screwed over America with the disastrous involvement in Vietnam (stemming from the fabricated Gulf of Tonkin incident). Most importantly, the Great Society has set up a permanent welfare state in this country, which has only worked to exacerbate poverty by increasing people's reliance on government handouts. What's your vote?
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2011 9:38:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I don't know who the worst is, but I'd like to take the opportunity to declare that Reagan is very overrated by the Republican Party. From what I've read about him, I don't really care for him that much.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
DoctorZhiva90
Posts: 27
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2011 9:42:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Although, I think you could make a case for Carter, since he was so ineffective during the whole Iran hostage crisis and as an all-around president, but he's been good as a humanitarian so that factors into my mindset a little. LBJ, on the other hand, contributed to 60,000 needless war deaths, and has had a lasting negative impact on America to this day with his reforms creating government handouts. He did some good things (Voting Rights Act, Civil Rights Act), but I'm fairly confident Kennedy would have passed those anyways if he hadn't been assassinated, since he was always very pro-Civil Rights throughout his brief presidency.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2011 9:43:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Woodrow Wilson. he sucked the country into an irrelevant war entirely driven by bank and corporate interests abroad. As if that weren't enough he bloated the government and created agencies of propaganda and agencies for the suppression of opposition to the irrelevant war. He then proceeded, or attempted to suck the United States into a binding web of alliances would require us to defend certain countries whenever they are under attack. Overall, he had a blatant disregard for the First Amendment, which went unaddressed by the supreme court, and he had a blatant disregard for the wishes and intentions of the founders, Washington namely, who denounced entanglement in foreign alliances.

I don't think I've heard of a more Unamerican president.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
DoctorZhiva90
Posts: 27
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2011 9:43:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/12/2011 9:38:23 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
I don't know who the worst is, but I'd like to take the opportunity to declare that Reagan is very overrated by the Republican Party. From what I've read about him, I don't really care for him that much.

Yeah, as a conservative I agree with you. He's basically the object of infatuation by neo-cons, whom traditional conservatives like myself despise for being warmongering hypocrites who put the Republican party before all else. Plus, Reaganomics was the wrong way to implement fiscal conservatism...
DoctorZhiva90
Posts: 27
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2011 9:46:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/12/2011 9:43:23 PM, 000ike wrote:
Woodrow Wilson. he sucked the country into an irrelevant war entirely driven by bank and corporate interests abroad. As if that weren't enough he bloated the government and created agencies of propaganda and agencies for the suppression of opposition to the irrelevant war. He then proceeded, or attempted to suck the United States into a binding web of alliances would require us to defend certain countries whenever they are under attack. Overall, he had a blatant disregard for the First Amendment, which went unaddressed by the supreme court, and he had a blatant disregard for the wishes and intentions of the founders, Washington namely, who denounced entanglement in foreign alliances.


Not to mention that he allowed the Fed to be created! An evil institution which has slowly robbed us of our earned wealth. You do have a point though with alliances. It was Washington who warned against those and we really ought to keep to that standard.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2011 9:51:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
A close second would be Herbert Hoover. The stock market crashed in 1929 and he still stood in front of audiences promising them that everything was perfectly fine. He didn't even do anything significant to retard the onset of the depression, instead he expected the private sector to fix it. Perhaps the economy would not have tanked so rapidly at that time had he took governmental initiative to improve it.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2011 9:55:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Actually, come to think of it, I just had a brain fart. I said this in another topic before, but.... William Henry Harrison. That guy didn't do a damn thing.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2011 10:03:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/12/2011 9:51:15 PM, 000ike wrote:
A close second would be Herbert Hoover. The stock market crashed in 1929 and he still stood in front of audiences promising them that everything was perfectly fine. He didn't even do anything significant to retard the onset of the depression, instead he expected the private sector to fix it. Perhaps the economy would not have tanked so rapidly at that time had he took governmental initiative to improve it.

This is such bullshiit... The "Herbert Hoover believed in the free market" myth has been proven to be just that, a myth, over and over again... He was a bad president, but because he intervened too much, not too little
President of DDO
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2011 10:07:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/12/2011 10:03:23 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 11/12/2011 9:51:15 PM, 000ike wrote:
A close second would be Herbert Hoover. The stock market crashed in 1929 and he still stood in front of audiences promising them that everything was perfectly fine. He didn't even do anything significant to retard the onset of the depression, instead he expected the private sector to fix it. Perhaps the economy would not have tanked so rapidly at that time had he took governmental initiative to improve it.

This is such bullshiit... The "Herbert Hoover believed in the free market" myth has been proven to be just that, a myth, over and over again... He was a bad president, but because he intervened too much, not too little

We went over this Jimtimmy. His approach to the stock market crash was entirely driven by the philosophy of private initiative. Tell me where he federally intervened to stop the Depression (except for the RFC which was done only to win the election of 1932)
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2011 10:18:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/12/2011 10:07:39 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/12/2011 10:03:23 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 11/12/2011 9:51:15 PM, 000ike wrote:
A close second would be Herbert Hoover. The stock market crashed in 1929 and he still stood in front of audiences promising them that everything was perfectly fine. He didn't even do anything significant to retard the onset of the depression, instead he expected the private sector to fix it. Perhaps the economy would not have tanked so rapidly at that time had he took governmental initiative to improve it.

This is such bullshiit... The "Herbert Hoover believed in the free market" myth has been proven to be just that, a myth, over and over again... He was a bad president, but because he intervened too much, not too little

We went over this Jimtimmy. His approach to the stock market crash was entirely driven by the philosophy of private initiative. Tell me where he federally intervened to stop the Depression (except for the RFC which was done only to win the election of 1932)

http://www.cato.org...

http://www.cato.org...
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2011 10:26:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/12/2011 10:18:37 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 11/12/2011 10:07:39 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/12/2011 10:03:23 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 11/12/2011 9:51:15 PM, 000ike wrote:
A close second would be Herbert Hoover. The stock market crashed in 1929 and he still stood in front of audiences promising them that everything was perfectly fine. He didn't even do anything significant to retard the onset of the depression, instead he expected the private sector to fix it. Perhaps the economy would not have tanked so rapidly at that time had he took governmental initiative to improve it.

This is such bullshiit... The "Herbert Hoover believed in the free market" myth has been proven to be just that, a myth, over and over again... He was a bad president, but because he intervened too much, not too little

We went over this Jimtimmy. His approach to the stock market crash was entirely driven by the philosophy of private initiative. Tell me where he federally intervened to stop the Depression (except for the RFC which was done only to win the election of 1932)

http://www.cato.org...

http://www.cato.org...

The Smoot-Hawley tariff was before the Stock market crash. Neither of those links answer my question. Where did Hoover federally intervene to stop the Depression?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2011 10:53:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/12/2011 10:26:30 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/12/2011 10:18:37 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 11/12/2011 10:07:39 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/12/2011 10:03:23 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 11/12/2011 9:51:15 PM, 000ike wrote:
A close second would be Herbert Hoover. The stock market crashed in 1929 and he still stood in front of audiences promising them that everything was perfectly fine. He didn't even do anything significant to retard the onset of the depression, instead he expected the private sector to fix it. Perhaps the economy would not have tanked so rapidly at that time had he took governmental initiative to improve it.

This is such bullshiit... The "Herbert Hoover believed in the free market" myth has been proven to be just that, a myth, over and over again... He was a bad president, but because he intervened too much, not too little

We went over this Jimtimmy. His approach to the stock market crash was entirely driven by the philosophy of private initiative. Tell me where he federally intervened to stop the Depression (except for the RFC which was done only to win the election of 1932)

http://www.cato.org...

http://www.cato.org...

The Smoot-Hawley tariff was before the Stock market crash. Neither of those links answer my question. Where did Hoover federally intervene to stop the Depression?

Tax Hikes, Increased Public Spending, Wage Fixing, etc...
President of DDO
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2011 5:44:55 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/12/2011 9:27:26 PM, DoctorZhiva90 wrote:
Just wondering everyone's opinions on this, and I'd like to see who people nominate other than Bush and Obama, who often seem to be argued as the worst. I'd say that maybe this is an effect of the serial position effect, since they are the most recent. My vote goes to Lyndon Johnson. After reading up on him I firmly believe that he royally screwed over America with the disastrous involvement in Vietnam (stemming from the fabricated Gulf of Tonkin incident). Most importantly, the Great Society has set up a permanent welfare state in this country, which has only worked to exacerbate poverty by increasing people's reliance on government handouts. What's your vote?

Simple...FDR worst ever
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2011 1:05:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/12/2011 9:51:15 PM, 000ike wrote:
A close second would be Herbert Hoover. The stock market crashed in 1929 and he still stood in front of audiences promising them that everything was perfectly fine. He didn't even do anything significant to retard the onset of the depression, instead he expected the private sector to fix it. Perhaps the economy would not have tanked so rapidly at that time had he took governmental initiative to improve it.

http://www.debate.org...

The myth of Hoover as a laissez-faire, or "do-nothing" President who relied on the private sector to counteract the depression might be the worst and most persistent of American history. It was his progressive, interventionist, liberal views on the economy that just worsened the depression. The opposite of everything you said regarding Hoover is true - it is precisely because he took government initiative to "improve" the economy that the recession turned into such a prolonged depression. Most of FDR's New Deal was modeled after programs Hoover started. Here are some facts regarding Hoover's response to the Great Depression:

FDR, Hoover's opponent in the 1932 election, focused much of his campaign on blasting Hoover for the unprecedented amount of government intervention that Hoover and his administration had enacted. He blasted Hoover for "reckless and extravagant" government spending, excessive taxing, driving up the national debt, stifling free trade, and for "presiding over "the greatest spending administration in peacetime in all of history. John Nance Garner, Roosevelt's running mate, charged that Hoover was "leading the country down the path of socialism."

Referring to counteracting the natural business cycle and propping up wages - the antithesis of the laissez-faire philosophy you claim he adhered to - Hoover said "No president before has ever believed that there was a government responsibility in such cases... We had to pioneer a new field."

Following the crash, the Hoover administration went into spending overdrive. Federal expenditures climbed by 4.7 percent between 1928 and 1929, and over the next three years they rose 8 percent, 17.2 percent, and 15 percent, respectively. Excluding military expenditures, spending under Hoover exploded by an enormous 259 percent. By the end of his term, federal expenditures had climbed more than 50 percent in dollar terms - the biggest increase in federal spending EVER recorded during peacetime. In percentage terms, federal expenditures grew more during Hoover's one term than they did during the first seven years of FDR's presidency.

In late 1929, Hoover ordered federal departments to speed up construction projects. He contacted all forty-eight state governors to make a similar appeal for expanded public works (the government response you claim he never took). He went to Congress with a $160 million tax cut, but it was coupled with a doubling of resources for public buildings and dams, highways, and harbors. Even after this massive, unprecedented increase in public works, Hoover proposed in 1932 to set up a Public Works Administration to coordinate and expand even more Federal public works.

During his Presidential campaign in the fall of 1932, Hoover summed up his interventionist efforts to cure the depression:

"We might have done nothing. That would have been utter ruin. Instead we met the situation with proposals to private business and to Congress of the most gigantic program of economic defense and counterattack ever evolved in the history of the Republic. We put it into action…. No government in Washington has hitherto considered that it held so broad a responsibility for leadership in such times."
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2011 1:18:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/13/2011 1:05:24 PM, jat93 wrote:
At 11/12/2011 9:51:15 PM, 000ike wrote:
A close second would be Herbert Hoover. The stock market crashed in 1929 and he still stood in front of audiences promising them that everything was perfectly fine. He didn't even do anything significant to retard the onset of the depression, instead he expected the private sector to fix it. Perhaps the economy would not have tanked so rapidly at that time had he took governmental initiative to improve it.

http://www.debate.org...

The myth of Hoover as a laissez-faire, or "do-nothing" President who relied on the private sector to counteract the depression might be the worst and most persistent of American history. It was his progressive, interventionist, liberal views on the economy that just worsened the depression. The opposite of everything you said regarding Hoover is true - it is precisely because he took government initiative to "improve" the economy that the recession turned into such a prolonged depression. Most of FDR's New Deal was modeled after programs Hoover started. Here are some facts regarding Hoover's response to the Great Depression:

FDR, Hoover's opponent in the 1932 election, focused much of his campaign on blasting Hoover for the unprecedented amount of government intervention that Hoover and his administration had enacted. He blasted Hoover for "reckless and extravagant" government spending, excessive taxing, driving up the national debt, stifling free trade, and for "presiding over "the greatest spending administration in peacetime in all of history. John Nance Garner, Roosevelt's running mate, charged that Hoover was "leading the country down the path of socialism."

Referring to counteracting the natural business cycle and propping up wages - the antithesis of the laissez-faire philosophy you claim he adhered to - Hoover said "No president before has ever believed that there was a government responsibility in such cases... We had to pioneer a new field."

Following the crash, the Hoover administration went into spending overdrive. Federal expenditures climbed by 4.7 percent between 1928 and 1929, and over the next three years they rose 8 percent, 17.2 percent, and 15 percent, respectively. Excluding military expenditures, spending under Hoover exploded by an enormous 259 percent. By the end of his term, federal expenditures had climbed more than 50 percent in dollar terms - the biggest increase in federal spending EVER recorded during peacetime. In percentage terms, federal expenditures grew more during Hoover's one term than they did during the first seven years of FDR's presidency.

In late 1929, Hoover ordered federal departments to speed up construction projects. He contacted all forty-eight state governors to make a similar appeal for expanded public works (the government response you claim he never took). He went to Congress with a $160 million tax cut, but it was coupled with a doubling of resources for public buildings and dams, highways, and harbors. Even after this massive, unprecedented increase in public works, Hoover proposed in 1932 to set up a Public Works Administration to coordinate and expand even more Federal public works.

During his Presidential campaign in the fall of 1932, Hoover summed up his interventionist efforts to cure the depression:

"We might have done nothing. That would have been utter ruin. Instead we met the situation with proposals to private business and to Congress of the most gigantic program of economic defense and counterattack ever evolved in the history of the Republic. We put it into action…. No government in Washington has hitherto considered that it held so broad a responsibility for leadership in such times."

Oh, also... Rexford Guy Tugwell, a member of FDR's "Brain Trust" and one of the most prominent architects of the New Deal once said: "We didn't admit it at the time, but practically the whole New Deal was extrapolated from programs that Hoover started." All because he was so laissez-faire, didn't do anything, and relied solely on the private sector.... Right? Yeah, definitely some characteristics of the New Deal right there.

I mean come on, this guy was criticized by FD-freaking-R and his running mate for reckless spending, excessive taxes, driving up the national debt, and SOCIALISM. He said himself that he and his administration had to pioneer a new field for the extent of government response that they offered to the Depression. He outright bragged about his anti-laissez faire, anti-private sector, anti-"do nothing" policies. His administration oversaw the biggest increase in federal spending ever recorded during peacetime. He created a government agency to speed up his massive public works projects.

Sorry, but Herbert Hoover's actual opinions and policies are actually antithetical to your delusional little narrative.
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2011 1:20:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/12/2011 10:26:30 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/12/2011 10:18:37 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 11/12/2011 10:07:39 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/12/2011 10:03:23 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 11/12/2011 9:51:15 PM, 000ike wrote:
A close second would be Herbert Hoover. The stock market crashed in 1929 and he still stood in front of audiences promising them that everything was perfectly fine. He didn't even do anything significant to retard the onset of the depression, instead he expected the private sector to fix it. Perhaps the economy would not have tanked so rapidly at that time had he took governmental initiative to improve it.

This is such bullshiit... The "Herbert Hoover believed in the free market" myth has been proven to be just that, a myth, over and over again... He was a bad president, but because he intervened too much, not too little

We went over this Jimtimmy. His approach to the stock market crash was entirely driven by the philosophy of private initiative. Tell me where he federally intervened to stop the Depression (except for the RFC which was done only to win the election of 1932)

http://www.cato.org...

http://www.cato.org...

The Smoot-Hawley tariff was before the Stock market crash. Neither of those links answer my question. Where did Hoover federally intervene to stop the Depression?

See my response. Would you debate this topic?
Aaronroy
Posts: 749
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2011 11:05:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
A few come to mind: FDR, Jimmy Carter, Lyndon Johnson, Woodrow Wilson.

Out of the four, Jimmy probably is the worst.
turn down for h'what
resistance4ever
Posts: 4
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2011 1:26:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I would have to go with FDR, that was the beginning of the social programs that have led to more and more progressive programs in our country. Since FDR started and his New Deal crap started, our people have become dependent on the Feds to run our lives, instead of being free, we just ask the federal government what we are supposed to think and how we are supposed to act. In return for us being mindless zombies, the give us welfare, social security, and money that isn't worth a darn.
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2011 2:39:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Reagan hands-down. We were on a course to bring sustainability into the government until Reagan stepped in and absolutely demolished it by appointing the very interests that were destroying it to head the efforts to control it. "Appointing foxes to manage the hen-houses" they said. The neoconservative movement that he founded still continues to defeat the interests of sustainability today, 30 years later and we've yet to crawl back to the point we were when he first took office to begin and rebuild what we had started. The neoconservative movement is starting to fade a little but it will still be at least a decade before we escape the damage.
Rob
Calvincambridge
Posts: 1,141
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2011 4:02:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Andrew Jackson he was a jack@ss
Trying to figure out women is like trying to solve a Rubik's cube with missing pieces. While blind. And on fire. And being shot.-Agent_Orange
Dude. Shades
That is all.- Thaddeus Rivers
One thing that isn't a joke though is the fact that woman are computers.Some buttons you can press and it'l work fine, but if you push the wrong one you'll get the blue screen of death.
silly, thett. girls are only good for sex. being friends with a female is of no value.-darkkermit
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2011 5:29:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
When historians are polled on the worst president, they usually pick Andrew Johnson. "Johnson is now scorned for having resisted Radical Republican policies aimed at securing the rights and well-being of the newly emancipated African-Americans."

It's too soon to assess modern presidents accurately. Andrew Johnson was once ranked near the top of US presidents, but he's now fallen to near the bottom. Truman finished his term with very bad public opinion poll numbers, but is now well-regarded.
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2011 7:11:21 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/15/2011 5:29:36 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
When historians are polled on the worst president, they usually pick Andrew Johnson. "Johnson is now scorned for having resisted Radical Republican policies aimed at securing the rights and well-being of the newly emancipated African-Americans."

It's too soon to assess modern presidents accurately. Andrew Johnson was once ranked near the top of US presidents, but he's now fallen to near the bottom. Truman finished his term with very bad public opinion poll numbers, but is now well-regarded.

Apparently he wasn't that bad if we print his face on our money...
Rob
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2011 8:47:06 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/16/2011 7:11:21 AM, Lasagna wrote:
Apparently he wasn't that bad if we print his face on our money...

Jackson is on money, not Johnson.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2011 8:59:46 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/16/2011 8:47:06 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 11/16/2011 7:11:21 AM, Lasagna wrote:
Apparently he wasn't that bad if we print his face on our money...

Jackson is on money, not Johnson.

Yep, Jackson, the guy who ran on ending the national bank is now printed on FED notes. A real tribute to his memory.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2011 12:20:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Jimmy Carter maybe. Abraham Lincoln was also bad.
I don't know much about Americas earlier presidents because I honestly think American history is THE most boring history. But yeah 'honest' Abe was bad.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2011 1:24:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/16/2011 12:20:36 PM, phantom wrote:
Jimmy Carter maybe. Abraham Lincoln was also bad.
I don't know much about Americas earlier presidents because I honestly think American history is THE most boring history. But yeah 'honest' Abe was bad.

You think American history is boring? Try learning Canadian history. Now that's boring as much as I hate to admit it.
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2011 4:31:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/16/2011 12:20:36 PM, phantom wrote:
Jimmy Carter maybe. Abraham Lincoln was also bad.
I don't know much about Americas earlier presidents because I honestly think American history is THE most boring history. But yeah 'honest' Abe was bad.

Seriously? Founding Fathers, boring? They were such bad@$$ rebels. That revolutionary generation is so fascinating. They had such a profound influence on... everything. I'm slightly obsessed with the Founders and America's early history, actually.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2011 4:42:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/16/2011 4:31:50 PM, jat93 wrote:
At 11/16/2011 12:20:36 PM, phantom wrote:
Jimmy Carter maybe. Abraham Lincoln was also bad.
I don't know much about Americas earlier presidents because I honestly think American history is THE most boring history. But yeah 'honest' Abe was bad.

Seriously? Founding Fathers, boring? They were such bad@$$ rebels. That revolutionary generation is so fascinating. They had such a profound influence on... everything. I'm slightly obsessed with the Founders and America's early history, actually.

They had the opportunity to experiment with a not very prevalent concept of government, thats probably why they're so fascinating. but I agree with phantom, I think early American history is kind of boring since the society was so different and unrelatable.

@ Phantom: What makes Lincoln so bad? How he saved the Union of this country? or How he emancipated slaves? or, was his temporary gear towards slight authoritarianism so bad that it outweighs this long-lasting triumph in human rights and ethics and the preservation of the sanctity of this nation?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault