-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Who was the worst U.S. president?
- Thread starter rambone
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
It really blows my mind that anyone voted for Obama in this poll. I'm sure he could do some crazy stuff before his term is up, but come on people, FDR, Woodrow Wilson, Andrew Jackson, and Honest Abe all make this dude seem like a saint. Some people need to read a few history books.
voted for fdr b/c of the long lasting effects of things he has passed. and every president had built on those things.
with that being said. any president that builds on a bad law rather than trying to repeal it or at the very least not touching it with a ten foot pole, is arguably just as bad as an enabler.
i did not vote for lincoln b/c freeing the slaves who were men who were ultimately created equal, was a good thing. i will admit it was in a hellava wrong way. read mixed feelings.
edit: did not know tsa was passed under W, currently that is one of my bigger **** offs as well. but still not warrenting a worst of the worst... yet
with that being said. any president that builds on a bad law rather than trying to repeal it or at the very least not touching it with a ten foot pole, is arguably just as bad as an enabler.
i did not vote for lincoln b/c freeing the slaves who were men who were ultimately created equal, was a good thing. i will admit it was in a hellava wrong way. read mixed feelings.
edit: did not know tsa was passed under W, currently that is one of my bigger **** offs as well. but still not warrenting a worst of the worst... yet
Last edited:
i think the reason obama has so many votes. (bad for sure ill admit) is people have such a short memory or no knowledge of history.
thats not always true of the people here. but hes our current pres and emotionally were are currently upset with him, so he must be the worst. "cant remember past clinton's second term anyway" lol
thats not always true of the people here. but hes our current pres and emotionally were are currently upset with him, so he must be the worst. "cant remember past clinton's second term anyway" lol
+1,000,000 ppl are really starting to show their ignorance of American history.
When we have guys on the list that forcibly removed hundreds of thousands, tried to pack the USSC, created the FED, destroyed states rights, and many other transgression, it's Baffling that Obama is considered worse than them.
Yes, our "free trade" agreement stacked the field against us. It's free for Mexico and Canada, not so much for us.
In my opinion you are a little mistaken. First off, Lincoln's issues with slavery were known, but he did not see anyone of a different race as equal. There is no record of any sort of abolitionism promises from Lincoln if he got elected. It was his position from stopping the expansion (<- Keyword) of slavery, they were going to allow it to remain in the states in which it already existed, North and South. The civil war started because of Lincoln's inauguration, and was fought purely for political and economic reasons, i.e. the preservation of the Union, and the necessary goods of the south.
Secondly the Emancipation Proclamation freed only slaves in the states outside of the Union, without compensation to the owners, did not outlaw slavery itself, nor give the now freedmen citizenship.
The 13th passed in 1865, the same year the war ended, but that was more of a political than humanitarian move, IMO. Imagine if the north had kept their slaves while the South had lost all of theirs two years prior? If it wasn't political, He would have abolished it in 1863 when he made the Emancipation Proclamation.
Tertiary, all of the slaves were thus freed in 1865, Lincoln's personal feelings towards the equality of peoples, and carried on by Andrew Johnson, who pretty much simply played caretaker (and was impeached at one point), is the reason it took another five years and a whole new president (Grant for you who don't know), before freedmen were granted citizenship because of the clause regardless of "race, color, or previous condition of servitude."
Can you tell who I voted for?
spencer rifle
Grandmaster
Having made long study of this subject, I doubt my position is a result of ignorance (though anything is possible).
Lincoln did everything he could think of to preserve the Union - his overriding goal. Some of his actions could be considered constitutionally suspect, but, unlike true tyrants, these were all suspended after the reunification was affected.
On March 6, 1862 President Lincoln in a message to the U.S. Congress stated that emancipating slaves would create economic "inconveniences" and justified compensation to the slave owners. The resolution was adopted by Congress, however, the Southern States refused to comply (Wikipedia). All this was before Fort Sumter was fired upon (but after the Fort Barrancas and Star of the West incidents). This could have cost $400,000,000, but the will existed in the North to pay the price if necessary. The South refused, same as they refused to even let Lincoln take office before they seceded.
Lincoln had no intention of abolishing slavery where it existed, despite pressure from abolitionist groups. That wasn't good enough for the South. They wanted slavery extended into all new territories and states. The Supreme Court has ruled that the black man had no rights that a white man was bound to respect, according to Chief Justice Taney. This meant that if a slave was brought into a free state, he was still a slave, effectively making all free states into slave states. And this still was not enough for the South.
If secession were allowed by the Constitution (which it is NOT), then what we would have had is Balkanization. What exists in such places is the tyrrany of the strong over the weak.
"A man must be far gone in Utopian speculations who can seriously doubt that, if these States should either be wholly disunited, or only united in partial confederacies, the subdivisions into which they might be thrown would have frequent and violent contests with each other. To presume a want of motives for such contests as an argument against their existence, would be to forget that men are ambitious, vindictive, and rapacious. To look for a continuation of harmony between a number of independent, unconnected sovereignties in the same neighborhood, would be to disregard the uniform course of human events, and to set at defiance the accumulated experience of ages." - Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers
President James Buchanan said "In order to justify secession as a constitutional remedy, it must be on the principle that the Federal Government is a mere voluntary association of States, to be dissolved at pleasure by any one of the contracting parties. If this be so, the Confederacy is a rope of sand, to be penetrated and dissolved by the first adverse wave of public opinion in any of the States. In this manner our thirty-three States may resolve themselves into as many petty, jarring, and hostile republics, each one retiring from the Union without responsibility whenever any sudden excitement might impel them to such a course. By this process a Union might be entirely broken into fragments in a few weeks which cost our forefathers many years of toil, privation, and blood to establish." This actually happened during the war, with parts of the South seceding from or refusing to cooperate with the whole.
We would have ended up just like 18th, 19th and 20th Century Europe. Just like the Balkans. There is good reason that it should be hard to leave the Union, and it is based upon an understanding of human nature. "We, the People..." are party to the Constitution, not "We, the States..."
They tried the "association of sovereign states" approach in the Articles of Confederation. It didn't work.
Lincoln did everything he could think of to preserve the Union - his overriding goal. Some of his actions could be considered constitutionally suspect, but, unlike true tyrants, these were all suspended after the reunification was affected.
On March 6, 1862 President Lincoln in a message to the U.S. Congress stated that emancipating slaves would create economic "inconveniences" and justified compensation to the slave owners. The resolution was adopted by Congress, however, the Southern States refused to comply (Wikipedia). All this was before Fort Sumter was fired upon (but after the Fort Barrancas and Star of the West incidents). This could have cost $400,000,000, but the will existed in the North to pay the price if necessary. The South refused, same as they refused to even let Lincoln take office before they seceded.
Lincoln had no intention of abolishing slavery where it existed, despite pressure from abolitionist groups. That wasn't good enough for the South. They wanted slavery extended into all new territories and states. The Supreme Court has ruled that the black man had no rights that a white man was bound to respect, according to Chief Justice Taney. This meant that if a slave was brought into a free state, he was still a slave, effectively making all free states into slave states. And this still was not enough for the South.
If secession were allowed by the Constitution (which it is NOT), then what we would have had is Balkanization. What exists in such places is the tyrrany of the strong over the weak.
"A man must be far gone in Utopian speculations who can seriously doubt that, if these States should either be wholly disunited, or only united in partial confederacies, the subdivisions into which they might be thrown would have frequent and violent contests with each other. To presume a want of motives for such contests as an argument against their existence, would be to forget that men are ambitious, vindictive, and rapacious. To look for a continuation of harmony between a number of independent, unconnected sovereignties in the same neighborhood, would be to disregard the uniform course of human events, and to set at defiance the accumulated experience of ages." - Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers
President James Buchanan said "In order to justify secession as a constitutional remedy, it must be on the principle that the Federal Government is a mere voluntary association of States, to be dissolved at pleasure by any one of the contracting parties. If this be so, the Confederacy is a rope of sand, to be penetrated and dissolved by the first adverse wave of public opinion in any of the States. In this manner our thirty-three States may resolve themselves into as many petty, jarring, and hostile republics, each one retiring from the Union without responsibility whenever any sudden excitement might impel them to such a course. By this process a Union might be entirely broken into fragments in a few weeks which cost our forefathers many years of toil, privation, and blood to establish." This actually happened during the war, with parts of the South seceding from or refusing to cooperate with the whole.
We would have ended up just like 18th, 19th and 20th Century Europe. Just like the Balkans. There is good reason that it should be hard to leave the Union, and it is based upon an understanding of human nature. "We, the People..." are party to the Constitution, not "We, the States..."
They tried the "association of sovereign states" approach in the Articles of Confederation. It didn't work.
Lincoln didn't care about ending slavery
Lincoln didn't care about ending slavery. He cared about "saving the Union." This is what he repeatedly admitted. He didn't care if slaves were freed or not. He just wanted to make sure that the Federal Government got to have the final say-so over state issues.
The ironic thing is that if the states were left to dissolve slavery on their own, they could have certainly done so peacefully in due time. Slavery was prominent in many countries around the globe, and few resolved the issue by waging war on their own countrymen. In time, slavery would have disappeared without killing 618,000 Americans. A revolution of ideas was required, not a bloody war and a vast expansion of the Federal Government.
In his own words:
"A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure permanently half-slave and half-free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved - I do not expect the house to fall - but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other."
-- Abraham Lincoln (House Divided Speech, June 16, 1858)
"If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union."
-- Abraham Lincoln (Letter to Horace Greeley, August 22, 1862)
Lincoln didn't care about ending slavery. He cared about "saving the Union." This is what he repeatedly admitted. He didn't care if slaves were freed or not. He just wanted to make sure that the Federal Government got to have the final say-so over state issues.
The ironic thing is that if the states were left to dissolve slavery on their own, they could have certainly done so peacefully in due time. Slavery was prominent in many countries around the globe, and few resolved the issue by waging war on their own countrymen. In time, slavery would have disappeared without killing 618,000 Americans. A revolution of ideas was required, not a bloody war and a vast expansion of the Federal Government.
In his own words:
"A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure permanently half-slave and half-free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved - I do not expect the house to fall - but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other."
-- Abraham Lincoln (House Divided Speech, June 16, 1858)
"If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union."
-- Abraham Lincoln (Letter to Horace Greeley, August 22, 1862)
Funny how being able to look back changes one's perspectives.
My Grandfathers fought and died for the Union ( though a couple of cousins went to Kentucky and joined the Confederacy). I even had a grandfather who was a Union spy. Despite my ancestors sacrifices I can't help but look back and say there is no way I could support Lincoln or his war. I could not support slavery (which is only part of the issue of the Civil War and not the ENTIRE issue as certain people would have it) but I could not support the heavy-handed authoritarianism of Lincoln at all. So Lincoln is high on my list of poor (read criminal) Presidents.
Since I live today, however, Obama has to hold the top spot. No one in recent times has shown more disregard for the Constitution or liberty than he has. (At least since Lincoln).
My Grandfathers fought and died for the Union ( though a couple of cousins went to Kentucky and joined the Confederacy). I even had a grandfather who was a Union spy. Despite my ancestors sacrifices I can't help but look back and say there is no way I could support Lincoln or his war. I could not support slavery (which is only part of the issue of the Civil War and not the ENTIRE issue as certain people would have it) but I could not support the heavy-handed authoritarianism of Lincoln at all. So Lincoln is high on my list of poor (read criminal) Presidents.
Since I live today, however, Obama has to hold the top spot. No one in recent times has shown more disregard for the Constitution or liberty than he has. (At least since Lincoln).
Paco Bedejo
Master
Was 2000 A.D. -> 2008 A.D. so long ago that you've forgotten Bush v2.0? Each president in this thread's poll put tools upon the presidential-abuses workbench. Bush v2.0 probably created as many tools as anyone else. You're getting upset with Obama because he's less deceitful about picking them up & using them. Your anger should be directed toward those who created the tools. It looks like 2012 will be another year where we vote between two guys who want to add more tools to the bench, regardless of D® or R® faction alignment. Statists are statists
Was 2000 A.D. -> 2008 A.D. so long ago that you've forgotten Bush v2.0? Each president in this thread's poll put tools upon the presidential-abuses workbench. Bush v2.0 probably created as many tools as anyone else. You're getting upset with Obama because he's less deceitful about picking them up & using them. Your anger should be directed toward those who created the tools. It looks like 2012 will be another year where we vote between two guys who want to add more tools to the bench, regardless of D® or R® faction alignment. Statists are statists
Isn't that a bit like being angry toward guns instead of the person who pulls the trigger? ...hmmm?
Paco Bedejo
Master
Your analogy isn't even remotely accurate. Are you saying that the executive needs ever-increasing power to trample freedoms...for self-defense?
Your analogy isn't even remotely accurate. Are you saying that the executive needs ever-increasing power to trample freedoms...for self-defense?
Nope. Just playing on your analogy. The person who chooses to wield the power unjustly is in the wrong. What must be done is to disarm him.
If I'm understanding you correctly, then we agree that the "tool" are there. I only submit that we need to take the tools away from the hands of the tyrant and hold responsible the hand that wields it for his choice. In that regard, Obama has not only wielded the tool but sharpened the edge and is threatening to use it even more autocratically.
spencer rifle
Grandmaster
As has been said here before, the North did not enter a war to abolish slavery, but the South started a war to keep it. There is no historically accurate reason to believe anything else.
The issue was state rights. Slavery was a function of that and was the economic powerhouse for the south. Slavery, being an emotionally charged institution, became the focus for many--mostly abolitionists of the North. It was a secondary concern for the South but an important one as they saw abolition as an attack on their culture. But the real issue was whether the state or the Federal government had the right to rule on its legality.
mydoghasfleas
Expert
Your position is..
"the north didnt enter the war to abolish slavery". I agree with that.
(can you "enter" something that you in fact started?) Why do you think they "entered" the war? What were thier real motives?
"The south started a war to keep it"....
The south could not have "started a war". If they started the war, that would mean they would have been the aggresers, if that were the case what were they trying to take from the north?
Southern people fought and died in the war who were not slave owners. Could those people have had other motives besides keeping slavery alive for those who owned slaves?
If so, what might those motives have been?
hookedonjeep
Expert
Sorry, Obamatard has spent this country into a corner; and as such, deserves nothing less that to win this poll....
Site Supporter
Latest posts
-
-
WTS/WTT: Dillon Small Pistol Plate for casefeeder, New $45- Latest: dieselrealtor
-
Staff online
-
Cameramonkeywww.thechosen.tv
Members online
- BroodXI
- TJ Kackowski
- dsol
- WebSnyper
- jhopson
- Whitey
- Bstarkey_46947
- radar8756
- zspeed130
- Cameramonkey
- Cavman
- Reece'sPieces
- Luke9455
- jpr
- Fireman610
- dieselrealtor
- snorko
- xwing
- DarkLight
- bkflyer
- tinmansinoz
- deo62
- Dutchmaster
- JAL
- MarinerFan
- cosermann
- B40B
- INPatriot
- Michigan Slim
- DoggyDaddy
- Ingomike
- ISP 5353
- drm-hp
- JimH
- dmeadlo
- wildcatfan.62
- BSUrugger
- Creedmoor
- chezuki
- 1nderbeard
- meyer4589
- Living
- bobzilla
- sdunsworth
- peterock
- Bybo
- Doug
- wtburnette
- Scott357
- blainepoe
