10 Best Presidents of the USA

At 1/8/2012 1:54:54 PM, 000ike wrote:
Can you actually highlight or bold where I called you a racist please Jimtimmy?

At 1/8/2012 1:51:58 PM, jimtimmy wrote:

At 1/8/2012 1:49:57 PM, 000ike wrote:

At 1/8/2012 1:44:35 PM, OberHerr wrote:

At 1/8/2012 1:39:06 PM, jimtimmy wrote:

At 1/8/2012 1:36:40 PM, OberHerr wrote:
Ah, don't you love the sound of liberals agreeing with each other, and thinking they are so smart all the while? Keeping patting each others backs, just keep it up.

The funniest part is that Royal and 000ike are the two dumbest libs here. Especially Royal.

When Royal came to DDO, the average IQ here dropped about substantially.

Ok, jimmy I will say one thing, is that you only discredit yourself when you call someone stupid, with little reasoning behind it.

You may be right, but don't discredit yourself by outright saying it, without any facts to back it up.

I would suggest tearing apart her arguments instead. Its more classy that way.

You think he has the ability to tear arguments apart? He's no Danielle. I've argued with him on the issue before, and Jimtimmy doesn't know the first thing about biology, evolution, or genetics. You'll also notice that the argumentative backbone of his position are studies, and he cannot answer any questions that get to the core of his position.

Jim Crow, ehh..Timmy, is about as classy as a hippo juggling china.

As you'll note, just as I predicted in my last comment, I was just called a racist again by 000ike.

At 1/8/2012 5:06:12 AM, DAN123 wrote:
what about Abraham Lincoln???

At 1/8/2012 1:56:21 PM, jimtimmy wrote:

At 1/8/2012 1:54:54 PM, 000ike wrote:
Can you actually highlight or bold where I called you a racist please Jimtimmy?

"Jim Crow, ehh..Timmy, is about as classy as a hippo juggling china."

You just said that on this thread. Do you not know what Jim Crow is?

If you do, then this is clearly calling me a racist.

At 1/8/2012 1:57:46 PM, OberHerr wrote:

At 1/8/2012 1:51:58 PM, jimtimmy wrote:

At 1/8/2012 1:49:57 PM, 000ike wrote:

At 1/8/2012 1:44:35 PM, OberHerr wrote:

At 1/8/2012 1:39:06 PM, jimtimmy wrote:

At 1/8/2012 1:36:40 PM, OberHerr wrote:
Ah, don't you love the sound of liberals agreeing with each other, and thinking they are so smart all the while? Keeping patting each others backs, just keep it up.

The funniest part is that Royal and 000ike are the two dumbest libs here. Especially Royal.

When Royal came to DDO, the average IQ here dropped about substantially.

Ok, jimmy I will say one thing, is that you only discredit yourself when you call someone stupid, with little reasoning behind it.

You may be right, but don't discredit yourself by outright saying it, without any facts to back it up.

I would suggest tearing apart her arguments instead. Its more classy that way.

You think he has the ability to tear arguments apart? He's no Danielle. I've argued with him on the issue before, and Jimtimmy doesn't know the first thing about biology, evolution, or genetics. You'll also notice that the argumentative backbone of his position are studies, and he cannot answer any questions that get to the core of his position.

Jim Crow, ehh..Timmy, is about as classy as a hippo juggling china.

As you'll note, just as I predicted in my last comment, I was just called a racist again by 000ike.

Yeah, I see where you are situation-wise, but don't stoop to idiots levels, they will only drag you down. I understand RP can be.....difficult to argue with, but if you appear to be the voice of reason, as opposed to people that just call you a racist out of reflex, you'll come out the winner.

At 1/8/2012 12:08:25 AM, jimtimmy wrote:
Here are the 10 Best Presidents of the USA, in order from best to 10th best:

1.) Thomas Jefferson

2.) George Washington

3.) Calvin Coolidge

4.) Grover Cleveland

5.) Ronald Reagan

6.) George W Bush

7.) Warren Harding

8.) William Taft

9.) James Madison

10.) John Adams

At 1/8/2012 2:00:45 PM, 000ike wrote:

At 1/8/2012 1:56:21 PM, jimtimmy wrote:

At 1/8/2012 1:54:54 PM, 000ike wrote:
Can you actually highlight or bold where I called you a racist please Jimtimmy?

"Jim Crow, ehh..Timmy, is about as classy as a hippo juggling china."

You just said that on this thread. Do you not know what Jim Crow is?

If you do, then this is clearly calling me a racist.

Jim Crow were a variety of laws passed during reconstruction to the modern civil rights movement intended to suppress and dilute the vote and power of African Americans. They exist to maintain the inferiority formerly established by slavery, except now, they are treated as what I would call "third class citizens."

You have been arguing, adamantly I might add, on the intellectual inferiority of Blacks and many other measures that would keep minority's out of America, and keep them from having fair opportunities. The comparison is accurate. It seems that you don't know what Jim Crow is.

At 1/8/2012 2:00:45 PM, 000ike wrote:

At 1/8/2012 1:56:21 PM, jimtimmy wrote:

At 1/8/2012 1:54:54 PM, 000ike wrote:
Can you actually highlight or bold where I called you a racist please Jimtimmy?

"Jim Crow, ehh..Timmy, is about as classy as a hippo juggling china."

You just said that on this thread. Do you not know what Jim Crow is?

If you do, then this is clearly calling me a racist.

Jim Crow were a variety of laws passed during reconstruction to the modern civil rights movement intended to suppress and dilute the vote and power of African Americans. They exist to maintain the inferiority formerly established by slavery, except now, they are treated as what I would call "third class citizens."

You have been arguing, adamantly I might add, on the intellectual inferiority of Blacks and many other measures that would keep minority's out of America, and keep them from having fair opportunities. The comparison is accurate. It seems that you don't know what Jim Crow is.

At 1/8/2012 2:01:49 PM, jimtimmy wrote:

I understand that I am better off just sticking to the actual argument. But, I am human. And, as a human, I can only take so much before making mean (although completely accurate) remarks in response to their mean and inaccurate remarks towards me.

But, I can see what you are saying. We are all better off taking the high road. And, I will do my best to do this, even as 000ike and Royalpaladin do not.

At 1/8/2012 2:06:16 PM, 000ike wrote:

At 1/8/2012 2:01:49 PM, jimtimmy wrote:

I understand that I am better off just sticking to the actual argument. But, I am human. And, as a human, I can only take so much before making mean (although completely accurate) remarks in response to their mean and inaccurate remarks towards me.

But, I can see what you are saying. We are all better off taking the high road. And, I will do my best to do this, even as 000ike and Royalpaladin do not.

I took the highroad, stopping insulting you and asking for a debate. I took the highroad not reciprocating your ridiculous insults at me and royal. I took the highroad pretty much ignoring the infantile nonsense Oberherr is pulling at the moment. Now I want you to put your money where your mouth is and get that debate ready with all deliberate speed, and stop whining like you haven't deserved a word of insult you've received.

At 1/8/2012 2:06:58 PM, socialpinko wrote:
I dont understand why people always make threads like this. Obviously liberals will like FDR and Lincoln, obviously conservatives will like Reagan and Lincoln (contrary to their limited government rhetoric), and libertarians will hate all of them. Why not just straight up debate the philosophies of government rather than just the superiority of it's representatives. It's like me saying Immanuel Kant was better than John Stuart Mill. Theres no way to measure which is better unless we first measure the soundness of their philosophies. Obviously everyone has different ways of measuring a good president so why not debate the principles straight up?

At 1/8/2012 2:06:16 PM, 000ike wrote:

At 1/8/2012 2:01:49 PM, jimtimmy wrote:

I understand that I am better off just sticking to the actual argument. But, I am human. And, as a human, I can only take so much before making mean (although completely accurate) remarks in response to their mean and inaccurate remarks towards me.

But, I can see what you are saying. We are all better off taking the high road. And, I will do my best to do this, even as 000ike and Royalpaladin do not.

I took the highroad, stopping insulting you and asking for a debate. I took the highroad not reciprocating your ridiculous insults at me and royal. I took the highroad pretty much ignoring the infantile nonsense Oberherr is pulling at the moment. Now I want you to put your money where your mouth is and get that debate ready with all deliberate speed, and stop whining like you haven't deserved a word of insult you've received.

At 1/8/2012 2:08:21 PM, OberHerr wrote:

At 1/8/2012 2:06:58 PM, socialpinko wrote:
I dont understand why people always make threads like this. Obviously liberals will like FDR and Lincoln, obviously conservatives will like Reagan and Lincoln (contrary to their limited government rhetoric), and libertarians will hate all of them. Why not just straight up debate the philosophies of government rather than just the superiority of it's representatives. It's like me saying Immanuel Kant was better than John Stuart Mill. Theres no way to measure which is better unless we first measure the soundness of their philosophies. Obviously everyone has different ways of measuring a good president so why not debate the principles straight up?

We like to argue? :P

At 1/8/2012 2:12:18 PM, socialpinko wrote:

At 1/8/2012 2:08:21 PM, OberHerr wrote:

At 1/8/2012 2:06:58 PM, socialpinko wrote:
I dont understand why people always make threads like this. Obviously liberals will like FDR and Lincoln, obviously conservatives will like Reagan and Lincoln (contrary to their limited government rhetoric), and libertarians will hate all of them. Why not just straight up debate the philosophies of government rather than just the superiority of it's representatives. It's like me saying Immanuel Kant was better than John Stuart Mill. Theres no way to measure which is better unless we first measure the soundness of their philosophies. Obviously everyone has different ways of measuring a good president so why not debate the principles straight up?

We like to argue? :P

I think I now understand why people get tired of this site. Members change but the topics of debate never do. Even on topics of current politics debaters are simply indirectly arguing for tier specific philosophy, just in a round about way. I swear this is like tue fifth president list thread I've seen in the last month or so. Not to mention everytime I argue with Ike or Knukle, I'm really just arguing against statist liberalism or fascism. It gets boring after a while.

At 1/8/2012 2:08:26 PM, jimtimmy wrote:

At 1/8/2012 2:06:16 PM, 000ike wrote:

At 1/8/2012 2:01:49 PM, jimtimmy wrote:

I understand that I am better off just sticking to the actual argument. But, I am human. And, as a human, I can only take so much before making mean (although completely accurate) remarks in response to their mean and inaccurate remarks towards me.

But, I can see what you are saying. We are all better off taking the high road. And, I will do my best to do this, even as 000ike and Royalpaladin do not.

I took the highroad, stopping insulting you and asking for a debate. I took the highroad not reciprocating your ridiculous insults at me and royal. I took the highroad pretty much ignoring the infantile nonsense Oberherr is pulling at the moment. Now I want you to put your money where your mouth is and get that debate ready with all deliberate speed, and stop whining like you haven't deserved a word of insult you've received.

You just called me Jim Crow and then defended the statement. How is that the "high road"?

You can't make an outrageaous, inflammatory statement like that and then claim to be taking the "high road".

At 1/8/2012 2:14:44 PM, 000ike wrote:

At 1/8/2012 2:08:26 PM, jimtimmy wrote:

At 1/8/2012 2:06:16 PM, 000ike wrote:

At 1/8/2012 2:01:49 PM, jimtimmy wrote:

I understand that I am better off just sticking to the actual argument. But, I am human. And, as a human, I can only take so much before making mean (although completely accurate) remarks in response to their mean and inaccurate remarks towards me.

But, I can see what you are saying. We are all better off taking the high road. And, I will do my best to do this, even as 000ike and Royalpaladin do not.

I took the highroad, stopping insulting you and asking for a debate. I took the highroad not reciprocating your ridiculous insults at me and royal. I took the highroad pretty much ignoring the infantile nonsense Oberherr is pulling at the moment. Now I want you to put your money where your mouth is and get that debate ready with all deliberate speed, and stop whining like you haven't deserved a word of insult you've received.

You just called me Jim Crow and then defended the statement. How is that the "high road"?

You can't make an outrageaous, inflammatory statement like that and then claim to be taking the "high road".

you didn't see what I did there? lol

Anyway, like I think Nonentity has said before, calling you something you are is not an insult. I never explicitly called you racist until now, but you really seem to want me to, so I'll tell it like it is. If you don't want that title, then the logical thing to do is to stop saying things that warrant it.

If claiming a whole group of people are inferior through genetics (aka inherently) is not racist, then nothing is racist in this world.

At 1/8/2012 2:14:44 PM, 000ike wrote:

At 1/8/2012 2:08:26 PM, jimtimmy wrote:

At 1/8/2012 2:06:16 PM, 000ike wrote:

At 1/8/2012 2:01:49 PM, jimtimmy wrote:

I understand that I am better off just sticking to the actual argument. But, I am human. And, as a human, I can only take so much before making mean (although completely accurate) remarks in response to their mean and inaccurate remarks towards me.

But, I can see what you are saying. We are all better off taking the high road. And, I will do my best to do this, even as 000ike and Royalpaladin do not.

I took the highroad, stopping insulting you and asking for a debate. I took the highroad not reciprocating your ridiculous insults at me and royal. I took the highroad pretty much ignoring the infantile nonsense Oberherr is pulling at the moment. Now I want you to put your money where your mouth is and get that debate ready with all deliberate speed, and stop whining like you haven't deserved a word of insult you've received.

You just called me Jim Crow and then defended the statement. How is that the "high road"?

You can't make an outrageaous, inflammatory statement like that and then claim to be taking the "high road".

you didn't see what I did there? lol

Anyway, like I think Nonentity has said before, calling you something you are is not an insult. I never explicitly called you racist until now, but you really seem to want me to, so I'll tell it like it is. If you don't want that title, then the logical thing to do is to stop saying things that warrant it.

If claiming a whole group of people are inferior through genetics (aka inherently) is not racist, then nothing is racist in this world.

At 1/8/2012 2:18:11 PM, jimtimmy wrote:


I never said any race is inferior to another. So, that is just a lie. I have said there are differences, but no race is superior.

But, if calling someone what they are is not an insult, then me calling Royalpaladin stupid was not an insult. I explained some of the things she has said in an above comment. It those things don't make someone stupid, I don't know what does.

Now, I know this may not seem like taking the high road. But, if you're going to make these absurd arguments. I will respond logically and fully.

At 1/8/2012 1:34:47 PM, jimtimmy wrote:

At 1/8/2012 1:17:15 PM, 000ike wrote:

At 1/8/2012 1:13:44 PM, jimtimmy wrote:

At 1/8/2012 12:52:30 PM, 000ike wrote:
By the way Jimtimmy, I'm still waiting for that debate. I also have a sense that the conservative coalition that flocked to your debate with Royalpaladin did not entirely vote accurately or fairly.

I said soon.

And, ROFL. I beat Royalpaladin 41-14. 41-14. And, that "conservative colation" that voted on that debate had plently of liberals. And, it is not as if there are a lot people on DDO that share my views on race.

In fact, if me and Royal had had equal arguments, she would've won, because this site is biased toward political correctness on race.

The reason I beat Royal was that I am MUCH smarter than Royal and reality was on my side, overwhelmingly. Because of these things, I won despite a bias against me on this topic. That is all there is to it.

Royal is smarter than you by a long shot by the way. In any case, I'll show you how much you've actually distorted reality in your reasoning, if and when you send the challenge.

ROFL... Royal is the biggest retard here. I have about 30 IQ points on her.

At 1/8/2012 2:21:13 PM, 000ike wrote:

At 1/8/2012 2:18:11 PM, jimtimmy wrote:


I never said any race is inferior to another. So, that is just a lie. I have said there are differences, but no race is superior.

Oh, so being INHERENTLY dumber is not inferior? ....You're more intellectually dishonest than I thought.

But, if calling someone what they are is not an insult, then me calling Royalpaladin stupid was not an insult. I explained some of the things she has said in an above comment. It those things don't make someone stupid, I don't know what does.

Now, I know this may not seem like taking the high road. But, if you're going to make these absurd arguments. I will respond logically and fully.

"With all deliberate speed" also meant I was calling you racist, since you missed that one. :)

At 1/8/2012 2:13:52 PM, OberHerr wrote:

At 1/8/2012 2:12:18 PM, socialpinko wrote:

At 1/8/2012 2:08:21 PM, OberHerr wrote:

At 1/8/2012 2:06:58 PM, socialpinko wrote:
I dont understand why people always make threads like this. Obviously liberals will like FDR and Lincoln, obviously conservatives will like Reagan and Lincoln (contrary to their limited government rhetoric), and libertarians will hate all of them. Why not just straight up debate the philosophies of government rather than just the superiority of it's representatives. It's like me saying Immanuel Kant was better than John Stuart Mill. Theres no way to measure which is better unless we first measure the soundness of their philosophies. Obviously everyone has different ways of measuring a good president so why not debate the principles straight up?

We like to argue? :P

I think I now understand why people get tired of this site. Members change but the topics of debate never do. Even on topics of current politics debaters are simply indirectly arguing for tier specific philosophy, just in a round about way. I swear this is like tue fifth president list thread I've seen in the last month or so. Not to mention everytime I argue with Ike or Knukle, I'm really just arguing against statist liberalism or fascism. It gets boring after a while.

Hmm, yeah I could see that. Of course, then you should play mafia, to recharge your batteries?

At 1/8/2012 1:09:22 PM, jimtimmy wrote:

At 1/8/2012 12:51:30 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:

At 1/8/2012 12:35:27 PM, jimtimmy wrote:

At 1/8/2012 9:16:59 AM, 1Historygenius wrote:

At 1/8/2012 12:08:25 AM, jimtimmy wrote:
Here are the 10 Best Presidents of the USA, in order from best to 10th best:

1.) Thomas Jefferson

2.) George Washington

3.) Calvin Coolidge

4.) Grover Cleveland

5.) Ronald Reagan

6.) George W Bush

7.) Warren Harding

8.) William Taft

9.) James Madison

10.) John Adams

WTF! Harding doesn't get on the list he died in office! He also ordered a naval reduction treaty with the naval superpowers of the world. The extra ships may have helped us in WW2. Grover Cleveland left very unpopular in fact some saw him as a Wall Street puppet in his second term and in the first he virtually vetoed everything! William Taft got rid of most of T.R.'s policies! Taft also occasionally slept while in meeting or at his office.

Harding cut taxes and spending. Grover Cleveland also believed in limited government and fought for that.

As for Taft, repealing TR's policies is a good thing. And, Reagan slept in meeting sometimes too, and he was still one of our greatest presidents.

Any president can cut taxes and spending, some just choose not to. Those that mean Harding is anywhere good and played a significant role in our nation: no. As Cleveland believed in a limited government at a time when the government should have been growing. This was a time when the people saw that the government slow with changes in the world. Particularly unpopular was Cleveland's veto to pensions for Civil War veterans. T.R. fought for workers rights and made the Panama Canal as well as his great big stick diplomacy. Also, because of Taft's loss of policies, T.R. has to run in 1912.

There are times when the government should grow, we don't want a very small government like in the Articles of Confederation. At least men like FDR and Abe fought to protect and preserve the nation. Ike constructed the interstate which dramatically made the nation wealthier quicker. Then we have Nixon who significantly made an arms reduction agreement with Russia and ended the Vietnam War. James Polk, one of the most successive of presidents expanded our nation.

No, there is no time government should grow. In all cases, more state intervention in the economy makes things worse for everyone.

At 1/8/2012 2:22:55 PM, jimtimmy wrote:

At 1/8/2012 2:21:13 PM, 000ike wrote:

At 1/8/2012 2:18:11 PM, jimtimmy wrote:


I never said any race is inferior to another. So, that is just a lie. I have said there are differences, but no race is superior.

Oh, so being INHERENTLY dumber is not inferior? ....You're more intellectually dishonest than I thought.

No, it is not. Who said intelligence means superior?

Africans are more athletic and probably have better survival skills.

Differences, not superiority.

But, if calling someone what they are is not an insult, then me calling Royalpaladin stupid was not an insult. I explained some of the things she has said in an above comment. It those things don't make someone stupid, I don't know what does.

Now, I know this may not seem like taking the high road. But, if you're going to make these absurd arguments. I will respond logically and fully.

"With all deliberate speed" also meant I was calling you racist, since you missed that one. :)

How does "with all deliberate speed" mean racist?

At 1/8/2012 2:24:50 PM, socialpinko wrote:

At 1/8/2012 2:13:52 PM, OberHerr wrote:

At 1/8/2012 2:12:18 PM, socialpinko wrote:

At 1/8/2012 2:08:21 PM, OberHerr wrote:

At 1/8/2012 2:06:58 PM, socialpinko wrote:
I dont understand why people always make threads like this. Obviously liberals will like FDR and Lincoln, obviously conservatives will like Reagan and Lincoln (contrary to their limited government rhetoric), and libertarians will hate all of them. Why not just straight up debate the philosophies of government rather than just the superiority of it's representatives. It's like me saying Immanuel Kant was better than John Stuart Mill. Theres no way to measure which is better unless we first measure the soundness of their philosophies. Obviously everyone has different ways of measuring a good president so why not debate the principles straight up?

We like to argue? :P

I think I now understand why people get tired of this site. Members change but the topics of debate never do. Even on topics of current politics debaters are simply indirectly arguing for tier specific philosophy, just in a round about way. I swear this is like tue fifth president list thread I've seen in the last month or so. Not to mention everytime I argue with Ike or Knukle, I'm really just arguing against statist liberalism or fascism. It gets boring after a while.

Hmm, yeah I could see that. Of course, then you should play mafia, to recharge your batteries?

Yeah I think I'm just going to stick to mafia for a while. Maybe I'll check out the philosophy thread but politics and society is dead. Liberals are the only ones who care about poor people. Conservatives are just trying to protect America from the a-rabs. Libertarians love freedom. I see it every time I check the forums and people seem more content to argue than to look for the right answers or solutions to the problems of society.

At 1/8/2012 2:26:38 PM, 000ike wrote:

At 1/8/2012 2:22:55 PM, jimtimmy wrote:

At 1/8/2012 2:21:13 PM, 000ike wrote:

At 1/8/2012 2:18:11 PM, jimtimmy wrote:


I never said any race is inferior to another. So, that is just a lie. I have said there are differences, but no race is superior.

Oh, so being INHERENTLY dumber is not inferior? ....You're more intellectually dishonest than I thought.

No, it is not. Who said intelligence means superior?

Africans are more athletic and probably have better survival skills.

Differences, not superiority.

This is so dishonest I can't tolerate it. Being dumber than one else is obviously asserting intellectual inferiority. Being more athletic than one else is asserting athletic superiority. You just don't want to use these words because they are the reality of your position, they are the reality of your views that accurately characterize what is so erroneous about them. Thats why you're pushing this nonsense.

But, if calling someone what they are is not an insult, then me calling Royalpaladin stupid was not an insult. I explained some of the things she has said in an above comment. It those things don't make someone stupid, I don't know what does.

Now, I know this may not seem like taking the high road. But, if you're going to make these absurd arguments. I will respond logically and fully.

"With all deliberate speed" also meant I was calling you racist, since you missed that one. :)

How does "with all deliberate speed" mean racist?

Look it up.....or learn some American History please.

At 1/8/2012 2:31:20 PM, UnStupendousMan wrote:

At 1/8/2012 2:24:50 PM, socialpinko wrote:

Yeah I think I'm just going to stick to mafia for a while. Maybe I'll check out the philosophy thread but politics and society is dead. Liberals are the only ones who care about poor people. Conservatives are just trying to protect America from the a-rabs. Libertarians love freedom. I see it every time I check the forums and people seem more content to argue than to look for the right answers or solutions to the problems of society.

Great post Spinko.

At 1/8/2012 2:06:58 PM, socialpinko wrote:
I dont understand why people always make threads like this. Obviously liberals will like FDR and Lincoln, obviously conservatives will like Reagan and Lincoln (contrary to their limited government rhetoric), and libertarians will hate all of them. Why not just straight up debate the philosophies of government rather than just the superiority of it's representatives. It's like me saying Immanuel Kant was better than John Stuart Mill. Theres no way to measure which is better unless we first measure the soundness of their philosophies. Obviously everyone has different ways of measuring a good president so why not debate the principles straight up?

At 1/8/2012 12:08:25 AM, jimtimmy wrote:
Here are the 10 Best Presidents of the USA, in order from best to 10th best:

1.) Thomas Jefferson

2.) George Washington

3.) Calvin Coolidge

4.) Grover Cleveland

5.) Ronald Reagan

6.) George W Bush

7.) Warren Harding

8.) William Taft

9.) James Madison

10.) John Adams