If You Could Choose Any Previous President...

[TravisT]

Ronald Reagan

 

[Pliablemoose]

Nixon

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: nick1985
so because times were different, wanting to exterminate indians and viewing them as sub humans isnt rascism? ok, now i understand.

yeah, you know how those cherokee in tennesse that assimailated to "white" culture and abandoned the nomadic way of life? good 'ol jefferson got the ball rolling on throwing them out, jackson finished the job. but since times were different, i guess this was "ok"....:roll:

maybe its you who needs a history lesson pal.

That was after Jefferson was governor of Virginia.

Originally posted by: wkabel23
Hold up there. Indians lived on the land first and were attacked first. Although claiming all white men are evil is wrong, claiming the indians were "terrorists" is just as false.

I was not trying to point blame. Merely put historical context into modern context. for nick's sake. I don't think he got it.

no, its you who doesnt get it. by saying jefferson was not rascist is just false. he was rascist against the native americans, this is proven in his own memoirs. it doesnt matter what context you take this in, the fact is still the same.

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: SwissArmyBilly
thomas jefferson wasnt a rascist?

"Thomas Jefferson himself, acting as governor of Virginia, wrote that "If we are to wage a campaign against these Indians the end proposed should be their extermination, or their removal beyond the lakes of the Illinois River. The same world would scarcely do for them and us."

yeah, he sure wasnt rascist...


This quote does not support the conclusion that TJ is a racist. He was a realist and a man that spoke plainly and truthfully. He simply said that IF you wage a campaign you must exterminate them or get the so far away that they are not heard from. The white man and the NA ways of life could not coexist and he saw that.

Billy

a realist? gimme a friggin break. so are the KKK just realists saying that blacks and whites can co-exist? :roll:

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: nick1985
no, its you who doesnt get it. by saying jefferson was not rascist is just false. he was rascist against the native americans, this is proven in his own memoirs. it doesnt matter what context you take this in, the fact is still the same.

And so, in the same light from reading your posts here on AT, you're racist against Muslims because you support the "War on Terror". Got it. Thanks.

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: nick1985
no, its you who doesnt get it. by saying jefferson was not rascist is just false. he was rascist against the native americans, this is proven in his own memoirs. it doesnt matter what context you take this in, the fact is still the same.

And so, in the same light from reading your posts here on AT, you're racist against Muslims because you support the "War on Terror". Got it. Thanks.

where in any of my posts did i say i support the removal of muslims from american lands? i support hunting and killing terrorists wherever they are, that is my stance. thanks for shifting the topic from jefferson to me.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: nick1985
where in any of my posts did i say i support the removal of muslims from american lands? i support hunting and killing terrorists wherever they are, that is my stance. thanks for shifting the topic from jefferson to me.

The point you're missing is that, in Jefferson's day, almost everyone was a racist by modern standards. That still did not stop him from playing a crucial role in creating the greatest and freest government ever upon the earth, and one in which people could eventually free themselves from the bonds of racism.
Basically, you're denouncing one of the greatest men in American history simply because he shared an attitude that was widely prevalent in his times. No one is perfect. But his positive accomplishments have stood the test of time, as without him we probably would not have the free nation that we have today.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: Mayax
Lincoln wasn't much of a President. He ended slavery, true enough but that's not what he set out to do. The ending of slavery was a fortunate by-product. A lot of you would do well to research beyond the whitewashed version in the school books.

He was a great president because he wouldn't let the country be split in two.

 

[Mayax]

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: Mayax
Lincoln wasn't much of a President. He ended slavery, true enough but that's not what he set out to do. The ending of slavery was a fortunate by-product. A lot of you would do well to research beyond the whitewashed version in the school books.

He was a great president because he wouldn't let the country be split in two.

Here's a good one to try. Go find any legal professor and ask what constitutional basis Lincoln had for preventing the states from leaving the union. Watch them stutter and stammer. The states have the power by virtue of the 10th amendment.

It was not within Lincoln's consitutional power to prevent a state from the leaving the union. By engaging in a war to keep the union together, he trounced the constitution in the process invalidating the very document that defines the country.

Instead, he provoked a war that cost hundreds of thousands of American lives again invalidating the very foundation of the country being that the people and their wishes are what matter, not the government.

 

[TBone77]

Originally posted by: classy
The best there is, the best that was, the best that ever will be

Bill Clinton

If you like fornicating presidents who pardon convicted terrorists in exchange for campaign contributions, then yes, Clinton.

[edit]
Oops... I forgot the "lying to Federal Grand Juries because it's none of their business" part... my bad.
[/edit]

Personally, I'd take Reagan. I grew up while Reagan was in office, and I remember feeling that, when he was speaking to the nation on television, we were all listening to our grandfather tell us "we have challenges to face, but we will prevail".

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Mayax
Here's a good one to try. Go find any legal professor and ask what constitutional basis Lincoln had for preventing the states from leaving the union. Watch them stutter and stammer. The states have the power by virtue of the 10th amendment.

It was not within Lincoln's consitutional power to prevent a state from the leaving the union. By engaging in a war to keep the union together, he trounced the constitution in the process invalidating the very document that defines the country.

Instead, he provoked a war that cost hundreds of thousands of American lives again invalidating the very foundation of the country being that the people and their wishes are what matter, not the government.

Your point is taken but is easily debatable. The Preamble to the Constitution could be interpreted that the federal government did have the power to keep the Union together, even by force. As could Article I Sections 8 and 10, and Article IV Sections 3 and 4. It is debatable.

What Lincoln did do wrong was wrest powers from the States and take those into the Federal government, paving the road for the large, bloated, centralized government that we have today.

 

[Mayax]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Mayax
Here's a good one to try. Go find any legal professor and ask what constitutional basis Lincoln had for preventing the states from leaving the union. Watch them stutter and stammer. The states have the power by virtue of the 10th amendment.

It was not within Lincoln's consitutional power to prevent a state from the leaving the union. By engaging in a war to keep the union together, he trounced the constitution in the process invalidating the very document that defines the country.

Instead, he provoked a war that cost hundreds of thousands of American lives again invalidating the very foundation of the country being that the people and their wishes are what matter, not the government.

Your point is taken but is easily debatable. The Preamble to the Constitution could be interpreted that the federal government did have the power to keep the Union together, even by force. As could Article I Sections 8 and 10, and Article IV Sections 3 and 4. It is debatable.

What Lincoln did do wrong was wrest powers from the States and take those into the Federal government, paving the road for the large, bloated, centralized government that we have today.

No, it's not even debateable. Read the 10th Amendment very closely. It states that any powers not given to the government are given to the states and the people. The government is granted the power to admit states into the union but there is nothing in there that gives the government the power to remove states from the union. By the 10th amendment and default, the power to leave the union belongs to the states entirely. As it is an amendment, it overrides anything to the contrary in the original Constitution.

Also read up on Thomas Jefferson's writings. He wrote the constitution and he was under the impression that the states were free to leave the union whenever they wished.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Mayax
No, it's not even debateable. Read the 10th Amendment very closely. It states that any powers not given to the government are given to the states and the people. The government is granted the power to admit states into the union but there is nothing in there that gives the government the power to remove states from the union. By the 10th amendment and default, the power to leave the union belongs to the states entirely. As it is an amendment, it overrides anything to the contrary in the original Constitution.

Also read up on Thomas Jefferson's writings. He wrote the constitution and he was under the impression that the states were free to leave the union whenever they wished.

Sorry, I disagree.

And Madison wrote the Constitution. Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence. Although he did have a hand in the Constitution, Jefferson was in Europe for most of its framing and didn't even sign it.

 

[Mayax]

Thanks for the correction. But you did bring up yet another document that backs up my side of the argument.


Disagree if you like, but you're wrong.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

You are incredibly morbid, you know that? Clearly your Rand reference is a joke Either that or your pick, but it's really not clear which!

I'm saying Thomas Jefferson or James Madison. I would, however, more than happily take John Adams, because though he was a devout Christian he was also a strong Separationist. Maybe he could talk some sense into these idiot Christians who think the founders were all Christian men who wanted a theocratic government.

Jason

Originally posted by: loki8481
FDR, definitely.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Yes, Jefferson was a slave owner. Aside from that however, he was the ORIGINAL Liberal. Modern Liberals are just Socialists in disguise (and yes, they would HATE a Jefferson presidency. Goodbye Welfare, Social Security, government sponsored road building, eminent domain seizures for non-public use...the list goes on!)

Jason

Originally posted by: nick1985
i like how these liberals are voting for jefferson when he had slaves and wanted indian removal. i hope you guys know he believes in about the exact opposite things as you...

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Jefferson was a slave owner, yes, but he was not a racist. Try actually READING about him instead of taking whatever fluff your professors shove down your throat. Modern intellectuals slander the man at every turn because he was AGAINST big government and entitlement.

Jason

Originally posted by: nick1985

and if jefferson was president you wouldnt care that he was a slave owner and an avid rascist right?

 

[Cobalt]

Originally posted by: nick1985
i like how these liberals are voting for jefferson when he had slaves and wanted indian removal. i hope you guys know he believes in about the exact opposite things as you...

I find it funny how conservatives mention Lincoln. I won't say anymore because I don't feel like getting banned again.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

No, actually they did the Electoral College on PURPOSE. Direct Democracy is antithetical to the principles of Liberty and Justice

Jason

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Poll huh?

One of the old school guys to wake people up and let us know that they didn't intend things to stay the same for hundreds and hundres of years-- like the electoral college.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

One might point out that, at the time, they needed 11 of the 13 colonies to ratify the Constitution and create the Union. The Southern slave states would not ratify without some provisions to protect slavery for awhile, and they NEEDED them in order to make the new Union work. They made a compromise, yes, but both the Constitution and the Declaration were written in such a way and worded on such principles that the liberation of men and women of all colors was inevitable, given enough time. They looked at the larger picture and they made a choice. I think they made the right one, and we can look out today and see men of all colors and nationalities, not to mention WOMEN, having the same freedoms that a mere 200 years ago only White Males enjoyed.

The founding fathers were THE original group of visionaries, and nobody before or since even comes close.

Jason

Originally posted by: Tom
It's impossible to say. My own opinion is that Jefferson was a great man, who possibly could have been even greater without the conflict of engaging in something that he thought himself was immoral. At least I think I remember he felt that way about slavery at some point in his life.

If Jefferson and a few of the other people of that day had opposed slavery at the get go, and had succeeded in leading everyobdy to find a better way to make the South's economy work, then maybe we would never have had the Civil War, and 140 years of racism that followed it.(so far)

On the other hand, without the Civil War maybe we never would have gotten as strong militarily as we did, and the world might have lost WW1 or WW2 and we'd all be slaves of the 3rd Reich now.

Speculation is complicated.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Just the revisionist shit, I'm pretty sure

Jason

Originally posted by: Vic
Sigh... in that time and place, Indians were like the terrorists you're so afraid of but they attacked every day.

edit: do they even teach history in our schools anymore? Or just that revisionist sh!t that says all white men are evil? :roll:

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

I take it that by "Socially progressive" you mean that he was in favor of stealing from some people in order to support others, right?

The man was a THIEF, pure and simple, and the closest we ever came to having a MONARCH in the oval office. He's also a GREAT example of why we need Term Limits and the Electoral college, to protect us from the mass of morons who will vote for the same bastard over and over and over again because he's good at giving a speech.

Jason

Originally posted by: dmw16
If I had to pick I'd say either Washington (the idealized figure of historic lore) or FDR cuz I liked how socially progressive he was. How about if I could pick any of the big guys from the early days of the country...how about Ben Franklin (yes I know he wasnt a president).

EDIT: You know, I would even go as far as to say Regan. At least he said "America would never be the aggressors in any war." Bush, did you hear that?

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

How can you be "Racist" against something that isn't a "Race"?

Jason

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: nick1985
no, its you who doesnt get it. by saying jefferson was not rascist is just false. he was rascist against the native americans, this is proven in his own memoirs. it doesnt matter what context you take this in, the fact is still the same.

And so, in the same light from reading your posts here on AT, you're racist against Muslims because you support the "War on Terror". Got it. Thanks.

 

[plk21]

Originally posted by: XZeroII
Thomas Jefferson. Hands down. That guy had wisdom up the ying yang. Unfortunately, he would probably rather die than live in present day US.

Strong points:
Strongly opposed to a strong central gov't.
Strongly opposed to a central bank.

I have to agree, but I would take Reagan as a strong second.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Actually, the 10th amendment reads as follows: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

That in NO WAY implies that the states have a right to leave. The argument most pro-slavery folks invoke is Jefferson's statement in the Declaration that

whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

However, Lincoln's emancipation proclamation was not "destructive" of the Liberty of the people of the United States, it simply EXTENDED that Liberty enjoyed by White people to also include Black people. What Lincoln did was not only completely appropriate from a political philsophy point of view, it was entirely LEGAL. The States simply have no right to secede on the grounds that they did.

Now, if they chose to secede because, say, the government was stealing their property or forcing them into certain churches or taxing them to death, that would be one thing, but Lincoln didn't do that.

Lincoln was right, the South was wrong. That's really it.

Jason

Originally posted by: Mayax

Here's a good one to try. Go find any legal professor and ask what constitutional basis Lincoln had for preventing the states from leaving the union. Watch them stutter and stammer. The states have the power by virtue of the 10th amendment.

It was not within Lincoln's consitutional power to prevent a state from the leaving the union. By engaging in a war to keep the union together, he trounced the constitution in the process invalidating the very document that defines the country.

Instead, he provoked a war that cost hundreds of thousands of American lives again invalidating the very foundation of the country being that the people and their wishes are what matter, not the government.