Who was the worst American President

[Nova Res Publica Romanorum]

Well, there's a lot of mythology surrounding Lincoln. He certainly wasn't the worst president, but in wartime he took some extreme measures that should never have happened. The suspension of habeas corpus comes to mind. People also get this idea that he was this great advocate of civil rights. Not to undermine the importance of the emancipation proclamation, but Lincoln wasn't exactly a civil rights advocate. He said, I believe on multiple occasions, that the white man would always and should always be held superior to the black man. The man was a bonified racist like many in his time. Again, certainly not the worst president, but not the shining example that many people think he was.

Considering the people he imprisoned during the suspension of habeas corpus were secessionists and their allies in Washington, I don't think we can blame him for using all powers available during a time of rebellion.

But when reading anything he said that may have sounded racist, keep in mind that one couldn't be an advocate of complete racial equality during the 1950s, let alone the 1860s.

I disagree with you on the first point. Secessionists or not, imprisoning someone for a belief is not at all o.k, and contrary to the principles the country was supposedly founded on. I understand why he did it for practical reasons, but that doesn't mean I can't blame him. As for the second, I totally agree, and I don't hold him to modern standards. No-one back then really supported equal rights. I just mean to break down the illusion that many Americans have that he was a major advocate for Civil Rights. It just isn't true. Unless you're saying he really was an advocate for civil rights but didn't voice it. To that I'd just say there's really no reason to think he was. He was a product of his time. Again, he wasn't a bad president, but the mythology surrounding the man is just that, mythology.

-Edit-
Smoya, I know you didn't say he was the best president in your opinion. Just making a point is all.

[Buena Suerte]

George Bush JR for starting a war about non-existent WMD's. Also George Washington for sitting in his mansion while his vice president runs the show and in bringing worse taxes than the Brits.

[Freiheit Reich]

Everytime I post this comment on NSG I am asked to source that. Use google, stop being so lazy. If it was hard to find I would source it.

Oh, poor baby. We expect citations.

Get the fuck over it. Welcome to the real world, where you are expected to back your shit up.

It was posted the last time I mentioned it. Besides, what about Andrew Jackson and the Trail of Tears (me and somebody else mentioned it). Why not ask for that source? Is it because politically you also dislike Jackson but like FDR? Suspicious.

Easy to find stuff should not have to be backed up. If it takes over 1 minute to find it than yes, it should be backed up.

FDR's high tax policies is as much common knowledge as AJ Trail of Tears.

[Freiheit Reich]

The poster never said it was. He just said that the gov had knowledge of 9/11. And they did. Clinton's administration left them memos. Bush dropped the ball.

EDIT: Remember this guy?

Problem his, said memo didn't actually directly reference the World Trade Center in any manner, except for the reference to the bombing.

Sure, there are plenty of references of possible hijack attempts by terrorists, or further bombings, but it's all really vague. With this information, they could have as well thought that Al Qaeda would have bumped a plane into the Chrisler building in NY, or maybe bomb the Empire State Building.

But if the point is saying that the Bush Admnistration was shit at noticing said memos and thightening surveillance and security, well, I agree.

9/11 was an inside job:

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?sto ... 1155307646

[Choronzon]

It was posted the last time I mentioned it.

Believe it or not, I don't catalog all your posts.

Besides, what about Andrew Jackson and the Trail of Tears (me and somebody else mentioned it). Why not ask for that source? Is it because politically you also dislike Jackson but like FDR? Suspicious.

Or, perhaps, because the Trail of Tears is common knowledge. I knew it existed. I didn't need a source. I did for your claim.

Easy to find stuff should not have to be backed up. If it takes over 1 minute to find it than yes, it should be backed up.

Poor baby. We expect you to back your shit up. Awwwww.

You made the claim, you provide the citation. Thats how this works.

FDR's high tax policies is as much common knowledge as AJ Trail of Tears.

Yes, but your specific claim is not common knowledge. The Trail of Tears is.


Look, I'm sorry we don't just believe whatever you say at face value. Maybe if you weren't constantly spewing bigotry, insane statements, and outright lies we wouldn't need a source for everything you say. Be more credible in the future and you'll find you'll get answers besides "source".

[Freiheit Reich]

It was posted the last time I mentioned it.

Believe it or not, I don't catalog all your posts.

Besides, what about Andrew Jackson and the Trail of Tears (me and somebody else mentioned it). Why not ask for that source? Is it because politically you also dislike Jackson but like FDR? Suspicious.

Or, perhaps, because the Trail of Tears is common knowledge. I knew it existed. I didn't need a source. I did for your claim.

Easy to find stuff should not have to be backed up. If it takes over 1 minute to find it than yes, it should be backed up.

Poor baby. We expect you to back your shit up. Awwwww.

You made the claim, you provide the citation. Thats how this works.

FDR's high tax policies is as much common knowledge as AJ Trail of Tears.

Yes, but your specific claim is not common knowledge. The Trail of Tears is.


Look, I'm sorry we don't just believe whatever you say at face value. Maybe if you weren't constantly spewing bigotry, insane statements, and outright lies we wouldn't need a source for everything you say. Be more credible in the future and you'll find you'll get answers besides "source".

The 'bigotry' I post tends to come with sources unless I state it is opinion. The 'bigotry' is harder to find and that is why I post sources for it. By the way, you call it bigotry when I have news articles supporting my views (ex. the anti-Islamic stuff you are likely thinking when you say bigotry).

By the way, now that you know FDR wanted a 100% tax rate, do you still think he was a good leader? How is that idea fair? How will that encourage people to maximize their productiveness? You would be an idiot to keep working after reaching $25,000. You would then be supporting a tyrannical govt. with your extra wages (which would all get taxed).

[Free Soviets]

Buchanan, followed by Andrew Johnson, Warren G. Harding, and maybe Franklin Pierce.

I'm always surprised that there's much of a debate beyond those four; and any attempt to name a post-WWII president just demonstrates how short modern historical memories are.

do we get to include post-presidency badness? because if so, john tyler committed treason in defense of slavery. though even that still doesn't make him as bad as buchanan and johnson.

also, i put it at johnson as worst. buchanan was weak and evil and let the country fall apart on his watch. but johnson clearly thought that the south's ideas should have won and set about making it so. the main aspect of buchanan's badness was fixed quickly - and we got to abolish slavery in the process. despite a congress that wanted to do good during his term and despite grant's wild popularity and strong attempts after, johnson's awfulness still hasn't been fully fixed.

and W is historically awful too. number 5 or 6 from the bottom, maybe

[Free Soviets]

Well, there's a lot of mythology surrounding Lincoln. He certainly wasn't the worst president, but in wartime he took some extreme measures that should never have happened. The suspension of habeas corpus comes to mind.

you do know that there is a reason the constitution explicitly says "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", right? suspending it was the right call in the face of the destruction of the country. its not even close.

People also get this idea that he was this great advocate of civil rights. Not to undermine the importance of the emancipation proclamation, but Lincoln wasn't exactly a civil rights advocate.

"i mean, sure, he may have been the leader of the party formed to oppose slavery, and sure, he may have freed all the slaves...but what did he ever do for black people really?"

[Nova Res Publica Romanorum]

Well, there's a lot of mythology surrounding Lincoln. He certainly wasn't the worst president, but in wartime he took some extreme measures that should never have happened. The suspension of habeas corpus comes to mind.

you do know that there is a reason the constitution explicitly says "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", right? suspending it was the right call in the face of the destruction of the country. its not even close.

People also get this idea that he was this great advocate of civil rights. Not to undermine the importance of the emancipation proclamation, but Lincoln wasn't exactly a civil rights advocate.

"i mean, sure, he may have been the leader of the party formed to oppose slavery, and sure, he may have freed all the slaves...but what did he ever do for black people really?"

As for the first point, you got me there. No real argument there. As for the second, you clearly misunderstand my purpose. I said specifically "not to undermine the importance of the emancipation proclamation" for a reason. Yes, it was a huge step forwards. Yes it was momentously important. Yes, Lincoln did a great thing for the black populous. My point is this, and I don't know how much clearer I can be: Many people in the U.S regard Lincoln as a fully fledged civil rights activist. He wasn't. I'm simply breaking up the mythology there. He actively voiced his opinions against racial equality. So again, while what he did was clearly important and a huge step forwards, it doesn't mean he was a civil rights activist.

[New New Capston]

9/11 was an inside job:

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?sto ... 1155307646

I guess that you believe that the Illuminati rule the world and tha Paul Is Dead.

[United Kingdom of Poland]

FDR, definitely, worse than Carter and Nixon combined. As I've explained earlier..

FDR was an authoritarian left-wing president that destroyed the ideal of American exceptionalism and freedom for decades to come. His policies started the current entitlement culture, where the people think the government should act as their babysitter. Ronald Reagan did his best and bravely started deregulating the markets and destroying remnants of FDR's tyranny in the 80's, but even that was not enough.

Even though America is the greatest nation on Earth, it could've been even greater. Decades of stagnation caused by FDR's policies are to blame; he truly is the worst president in the history of the US.

so having 25% unemployment, banks falling like domino's, the old and out of work starving in the street, and those still working working for pennies is better then what actually happened. In that case, don't collect social security when you retire and start working for 2.00 an hour.

[Free Soviets]

"i mean, sure, he may have been the leader of the party formed to oppose slavery, and sure, he may have freed all the slaves...but what did he ever do for black people really?"

As for the first point, you got me there. No real argument there. As for the second, you clearly misunderstand my purpose. I said specifically "not to undermine the importance of the emancipation proclamation" for a reason. Yes, it was a huge step forwards. Yes it was momentously important. Yes, Lincoln did a great thing for the black populous. My point is this, and I don't know how much clearer I can be: Many people in the U.S regard Lincoln as a fully fledged civil rights activist. He wasn't. I'm simply breaking up the mythology there. He actively voiced his opinions against racial equality. So again, while what he did was clearly important and a huge step forwards, it doesn't mean he was a civil rights activist.

it does though. in the words of frederick douglass, "Abraham Lincoln, while unsurpassed in his devotion to the welfare of the white race, was also in a sense hitherto without example, emphatically, the black mans President: the first to show any respect to their rights as men."

he wasn't as radical as the best of his contemporaries, but lincoln got shit done that nobody else had been able to get started.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

Who's tired of throwaway ops with tired old questions and repeat 'worst of' topics?

I am, bah gawd ... Oh yes, I am.