Leats favorite president

[Duke_of_Ray 0]

I know that I create these dumb threads, but you all have already took the good ones.  Anyways, I would have to say my least favroite president is Abraham Lincoln, suprised? Infact I do not consider him to be a president of my history, Davis takes his place. Lincoln fought against what America was founded on and stoped, from what I understand, a act that was not unconstitutional. Please do not give me that load of bull that Lincoln was the man who cared for the slaves!LOL! I hope none of you believe that. Lincoln was a racsist, and no I am not.  I belive in equal rights for all, so do not call me what I am not. The south had slaves, but the slaves where sold by their own people! Slavery is wrong, but the South would have ended it, there is no need for it, especially now. The north was just as bad as the South, well even worse. So the south may have lost its war for independence, and maybe it was for the best, but The South was in the right.

[Duke_of_Ray 0]

LOL! I spelled least wrong!  I am a very very poor typer, wish this forum had spell check.

[Warin 0]

You also spelled South wrong, amongst other things.

You very much need to start going to class and paying attention more often, my friend. Your grasp of history is tenuous at best.

Not trying to slam at you... but this year when you go back to school, try reading the history books, and actually study... rather than assuming you know weverything already (which is a common conceit of youth)

Now.. on topic...

If I had to pick my least favourite US president, it would be Kennedy. His family is very corrupt, and there are many questions about the election that he won (I saw a documentary on mob influence in America that was very interesting). He began the escalation of involvement in south east Asia that culminated in the Vietnam War. And too top it off, he was as much a philanderer as Clinton ever was...but instead of being reviled for it, he's almost like a national hero to you Americans.

There ya go, my two cents.

[Rhubarbman 0]

i dont like Kennedy's either as they where involved in the homocide of Marilyn Monroe.

[billytran 0]

Well, I absolutely hate Clinton for all that he did. He corrupted his office and the whole country. Lincoln was good for helping to free the slaves, but he really screwed over the tenth amendment. The War of Northern Agression was all his fault. LBJ was the man who did most of the escalation in Vietnam, not Kennedy.

[pathfinder 0]

Cliton(I spelled it right ) and Kennedy are in a tie for me. But since bill idolized kennedy there was bound to be the horrid crap that went on over here. To bad there hasn't been a total repeat in history.

I just wonder what kind of assholes keep reelecting Ted ( hope you can't swim) Kennedy?!?!?

[Duke_of_Ray 0]

Ahhh but my grab on the War for Southern Independence is not that bad. I look at the keyboard and not the screen so for some odd reason I do not do a good job of typing. I listen in history class, it is mainly just English, where boardem rains supreme.

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">...War for Southern Independence...<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">...The War of Northern Agression... <span id='postcolor'>

LOL! Not hard to tell where y'all are from

Sometimes I think there are two different history text books used in the US. One for the North, one for the South.

Here's a thought for you...

How would the history books he written if the South had won?  What would be said about it then?  Now when you twist your brain around that...apply that to a few other wars.  Then you'll understand the concept that the world is not really black and white.

[Duke_of_Ray 0]

My pint was that abraham Lincoln fought against what Americas was founded on.

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Duke_of_Ray @ Aug. 07 2002,05:07)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">My pint was that abraham Lincoln fought against what Americas was founded on.<span id='postcolor'>

From the preamble to the constitution of the United States:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. <span id='postcolor'>

Hum. Strange. I dont see 'Only those who arent slaves' in there. My history of the US may be shaky, but the south was a mainly agrarian society at the time of the Civil War, and as such relied fairly heavily on the slave labourers in it's fields. The north was more industrial, and as such didnt rely as much on the unskilled labour of slaves. And when the Seccesionists who supported the practice of slavery had enough power, the Civil War was on.

Simplistic perhaps...but trying to complain that Lincoln was a bad President because he:

a) was against slavery

and

b) didnt accept the seccesion of the southern states from the union

is a little inane.

[Duke_of_Ray 0]

lol!Warin, could you find me something that says the sates can not secede and form their own country. Besides you being a Canadian why would you care about the War for Southern Independence? I said slavery was wrong, but both sides where racsist, but the winner writes the history.

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Duke_of_Ray @ Aug. 07 2002,06:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">lol!Warin, could you find me something that says the sates can not secede and form their own country. Besides you being a Canadian why would you care about the War for Southern Independence? I said slavery was wrong, but both sides where racsist, but the winner writes the history. <span id='postcolor'>

Main Entry: re·bel·lion

Pronunciation: ri-'bel-y&n

Function: noun

Date: 14th century

1 : opposition to one in authority or dominance

2 a : open, armed, and usually unsuccessful defiance of or resistance to an established government b : an instance of such defiance or resistance

The south lost. Therefore they were rebels by the above definition. Therefore Lincoln, by maintaining the Union, was a good president. If the south had won (read some Harry Turtledove ) then we'd being having a toally different discussion. And I dont really care, I am merely pointing out that the whinging being done almost 150 years later is pointless You lost.

[Col. Kurtz 0]

Im glad the North one, at least they dont oppenly support Slavery, only let it happen. Harry Turtledove is great! I have read most of the World War series and the first book in the hypothitical South vs. Norht durring WW1. I have heard he wrote a book called guns of the south were the South had AK-47s, how the hell did they get Kalishnakovs in the 1860s?

[nordin dk 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Col. Kurtz @ Aug. 07 2002,07:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I have heard he wrote a book called guns of the south were the South had AK-47s, how the hell did they get Kalishnakovs in the 1860s?<span id='postcolor'>

By the use of timemachines of course, how stupid can you get

Anyway, since I don't know anything about the majority of former American presidents, I'm just gonna say Franklin Pierce

[USSoldier11B 0]

Millard Fillmore.

Most historians agree that he was the worst U.S. president ever.

[billytran 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Aug. 07 2002,06:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Duke_of_Ray @ Aug. 07 2002,06:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">lol!Warin, could you find me something that says the sates can not secede and form their own country. Besides you being a Canadian why would you care about the War for Southern Independence? I said slavery was wrong, but both sides where racsist, but the winner writes the history. <span id='postcolor'>

Main Entry: re·bel·lion

Pronunciation: ri-'bel-y&n

Function: noun

Date: 14th century

1 : opposition to one in authority or dominance

2 a : open, armed, and usually unsuccessful defiance of or resistance to an established government b : an instance of such defiance or resistance

The south lost.  Therefore they were rebels by the above definition. Therefore Lincoln, by maintaining the Union, was a good president.  If the south had won (read some Harry Turtledove ) then we'd being having a toally different discussion.  And I dont really care, I am merely pointing out that the whinging being done almost 150 years later is pointless  You lost.  <span id='postcolor'>

The South had its right to secede from what was (until Lincoln destroyed the 10th amendment) a voluntary union. After they formed the CSA, they were a whole different country therefore it was not a rebellion or a civil war. The CSA lost, and was taken over by the Union as a result of the war between two countries. Under your logic, the French in WWII were rebels.

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (billytran @ Aug. 07 2002,15:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The South had its right to secede from what was (until Lincoln destroyed the 10th amendment) a voluntary union.  After they formed the CSA, they were a whole different country therefore it was not a rebellion or a civil war.  The CSA lost, and was taken over by the Union as a result of the war between two countries.  Under your logic, the French in WWII were rebels.<span id='postcolor'>

They claimed to be a seperate nation.  The Federalists disagreed and the war started as a result of the seccesion. They lost. Therefore they were rebels.  This would be totally a different arguement if they hadnt lost.

France in WWII is a different case.  They were conquered and then capitulated.  The partisans that fought the germans were, in a way, 'rebels' since they were going against the will of the vichy french government.  However when the Allies won and restored the French government, they were heroes.  Thus is it with history.  The South lost, the SCA was dismantled and therefore they were rebels.  You may not like it, it may rankle people in the south to this day... but it's the way of things... the victors write the history.

[billytran 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Aug. 07 2002,20:08)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

The constitution gave them the right to secede, which they did. That made them a separate nation.

[zverushka 0]

Where does it say that any US state or group of states can secede and become a seperate country and government can't do anything about it?

[billytran 0]

The US is a voluntary union... a state has to make the decision to join. Nowhere in the constitution does it say that a state cannot leave, so by default the 10th amendment gives them that right.

[cybrid 0]

JFK, I see him as a hippie in a suit, and he didn't seem conserned about communism in Viet Nam (as to my understanding).

[Aguacate 0]

Kennedy and Clinton

[ralphwiggum 6]

Nixon,

Reagan(just a bit),

Bush Sr.,

Bush Jr.