Which US PResidents were Horrid?: Part II

DarkCloud · April 2, 2002, 23:28

The Elder Presidentes

Next Edition- Mejicano Presidentes

(If I can find my list

) perhaps someone else will humor me

Dan Magaha FIRAXIS · April 2, 2002, 23:36

Another trick question, I see... Based on attendance records alone, we can conclude that Al Gore is the most horrid US President. He won the election and has elected not to show up for work ever since!

Dan

Dis · April 2, 2002, 23:39

now I am happy Grant is on a list, I never liked his presidency...

edit: I forgot to vote for more than 1. oh well...

Wiglaf · April 2, 2002, 23:42

Quote:

Another trick question, I see... Based on attendance records alone, we can conclude that Al Gore is the most horrid US President. He won the election and has elected not to show up for work ever since!

Please take the trash elsewhere, Dan. If CivIII had been somewhere in the realm of decent we'd all laugh. But it wasn't.

So, I think I'm going to cry. Your ignorance makes me sick. I honestly hope you aren't serious.

David Floyd · April 2, 2002, 23:43

I voted for all of them - I can't really pick a worst, although Lincoln could possibly be the worst, along with probably TR and a coupla others.

Dan Magaha FIRAXIS · April 2, 2002, 23:43

I guess you got the Caps Lock unstuck. That's good news, at least.

Dan

Dis · April 2, 2002, 23:46

Hey wiggy is back!!

I can't believe he was begging the mods to let him back in. You had your chance at a real life. Now you are stuck here with the dweebs.

You are now under our control.

mactbone · April 2, 2002, 23:50

DF, is there a single American President that you like, that actually did something?

Or is it the fact that the President in question was totally ineffectual that makes you like them?

MrFun · April 2, 2002, 23:51

I voted Andrew Johnson and Woodrow Wilson as really bad presidents.

I read why Lincoln had Johnson as his vice-president, but I believe that was one of the few mistakes that Lincoln made in his presidency.
Johnson was foolish to believe that all the ex-Confederate politicians could be welcomed back with open arms with his lenient, light requirements for them to reenter their offices.

Wilson was so blatantly racist, it's not even funny. He even took the "Birth of the Nation" as a factual documentary-based film.

Apparently, there are four dumb people who voted Lincoln as a really bad president.

David Floyd · April 2, 2002, 23:53

Quote:

DF, is there a single American President that you like, that actually did something?

Besides Coolidge, who was OK? No.

Quote:

Or is it the fact that the President in question was totally ineffectual that makes you like them?

That is generally one of their redeeming qualities.

mactbone · April 2, 2002, 23:58

So in other words, we should just make the Presidency a figurehead position? Thereby having all decisions made by Congress, or the SC? Seems the checks and balances could get a little out of whack in that situation. Although, if that ever happened, you'd be railing about some other government position like Speaker of the House. Eventually you would demand that your state have no governor, as it only takes rights away. Then, eventually, we live in a post-apocalyptic era, where gangs roam free and the gun is a way of life.

MrFun · April 2, 2002, 23:59

Quote:

Originally posted by David Floyd
I voted for all of them - I can't really pick a worst, although Lincoln could possibly be the worst, along with probably TR and a coupla others.

I hope you're not an extremist, David.

David Floyd · April 3, 2002, 00:00

No, but doing nothing is generally better than violating the Constitution, which is usually the other option. Or so the trend goes.

David Floyd · April 3, 2002, 00:02

Quote:

I hope you're not an extremist, David.

No, I just think Lincoln and TR were terrible.

MrFun · April 3, 2002, 00:04

Quote:

Originally posted by David Floyd
No, but doing nothing is generally better than violating the Constitution, which is usually the other option. Or so the trend goes.

So in other words, you see the Constitution as something that is stagnant, and static. A dusty document that should never change with the values and reality of society??

If that is how you view the Constitution, you are mistaken. The Constitution is a document that should be able to be changed without altering its fundamental, basic underlying principles.

And of course, you and I disagree with Lincoln. I believe Lincoln did not violate the Constitution, or, at the most, a couple of minimum violations.

Ramo · April 3, 2002, 00:05

Does anyone care to guess my response?

Quote:

He even took the "Birth of the Nation" as a factual documentary-based film.

You're telling me that the movie about the virtuous plunger-men battling the evil bad-makeup-job advocates was fiction?

David Floyd · April 3, 2002, 00:08

Quote:

So in other words, you see the Constitution as something that is stagnant, and static. A dusty document that should never change with the values and reality of society??

Basically - only mechanism of change is an Amendment.

Quote:

If that is how you view the Constitution, you are mistaken. The Constitution is a document that should be able to be changed without altering its fundamental, basic underlying principles.

Wrong. See above.

Quote:

And of course, you and I disagree with Lincoln. I believe Lincoln did not violate the Constitution, or, at the most, a couple of minimum violations.

Yes, suspending habeas corpus is a "minimal" violation

MrFun · April 3, 2002, 00:17

Quote:

Originally posted by David Floyd

Yes, suspending habeas corpus is a "minimal" violation

Read some books other than your own narrow perspective.

Such as one that is titled

The Reintegration of American History—Slavery and the Civil War by William W. Freehling.

Believe it or not, there are historians who argue both sides of the issue in regards to Lincoln.

Ramo · April 3, 2002, 00:18

The violation wrt suspending habeas corpus was that he didn't get Congressional approval first (which he did eventually get later in his term). Compared to some of the other violations of the Constitution by Lincoln, it could be thought of as minimal.

Imran Siddiqui · April 3, 2002, 00:19

Quote:

I voted Andrew Johnson and Woodrow Wilson as really bad presidents.

I added US Grant to that. He appointed his friends, who were some of the most corrupt people you'd ever see. Great general, bad Prez.

Ramo · April 3, 2002, 00:20

Quote:

Believe it or not, there are historians who argue both sides of the issue in regards to Lincoln.

Yep, there's a right side and a wrong side wrt 19th century Constitutional law. Apparantly the people who you've read are on the wrong side.

MrFun · April 3, 2002, 00:22

Quote:

Originally posted by Ramo

Yep, there's a right side and a wrong side wrt 19th century Constitutional law. Apparantly the people who you've read are on the wrong side.

Nope, and I'm not going to get into the kids' playground screaming fight, "you're wrong! I'm right!"

David Floyd · April 3, 2002, 00:24

Good, cause it's 2 against 1

Ramo · April 3, 2002, 00:33

Quote:

Nope, and I'm not going to get into the kids' playground screaming fight, "you're wrong! I'm right

Har har har.

Maybe you could point out in the Constitution where it says federal troops have the authority to break strikes. Perhaps you can point out the Constitutional justification for conscription as well. What about railroad subsidies? Et cetera, etc., etc.

David Floyd · April 3, 2002, 00:36

Or for that matter using the military to influence state elections (and possibly even his own in 1864).

MrFun · April 3, 2002, 00:40

When the Southern states seceded because they could not accept the legitimacy of a majoritarian government, they broke up the United States.

This could be seen as an internal violation of the United State's soveirgnty, when the Southern states seceded.

David Floyd · April 3, 2002, 00:42

A)But it isn't
B)I'm talking about his use of troops against the Maryland Legislature

MrFun · April 3, 2002, 00:46

In the book I mentioned, the author argued how Lincoln did not violate Maryland's functioning state government.

I wish I remembered his points.

David Floyd · April 3, 2002, 00:48

Sounds like bullshit to me - he arrested members of the Legislature without violating MD's government. Ladies and gents: Harry Houdini!

Ramo · April 3, 2002, 00:48

MrFun, I believe I made a post addressed to you.