Bush?
Offline I for one think Bush is by far the worse president this country has had thus far. He has ties with economic scandals such as Enron and Kenneth Lay. And not to mention he helped set up tax shelters in the caymans and other tropical islands which let the multi-millionaires of Enron and other companies avoid paying taxes. infact, they didnt pay taxes in 4 out of their last 5 years at Enron.
and in the process he has not only put this country lower in debt then it has ever been in history, but also screwed the middle and lower class out of money that is rightfully theirs.
EXAMPLE: The Estate Tax, which Bush got rid of, which said that in order to inherit a parents money and land and whatnot the benefactor must pay the government a cetain percentage, now, this may be bad for lower class farmers who do not have alot of money, and may have to sell the farm in order to pay the tax.
(heres the kicker) THERE HAS NOT BEEN ANY RECORD OF SOMEONE HAVING TO SELL THE FARM IN ORDER TO PAY THE STATE TAX!
now, lets look at this from the other side of the spectrum: the upper class (who would have to pay much much more than the lower class farmer, which in turn would have fueled the economy) now dont have to pay anything, thus trickling even more money into their pockets.
now, if this isnt a bad president, i dont know what is.
For anyone that is interested about Huey Long, theirs a moive thats from a novel very closely accurate to Longs life. Its called "All The Kings Men" staring Will Penn and Jude Law. Remember its accurate, not a biography of Long, in the moive his name is Willie Stark.
I have faith that one day people will realize it's not all about Republican or Democrat, but that through their tiffs with each other, the public has allowed each president to become entrusted with more power and less responsibility since day one.
Clinton was no saint.
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdhisto4.htm
Notice the DOTGOV
Debt continues to rise, and both parties want more wars and more government programs. So yes, I'll go ahead and agree that Bush is the worst president we've had, but don't let the next guy fool you.
If you think Bush is a bad president read about Abraham Lincoln. Only reason people don't think of Lincoln when you say "bad president" is because history is written by the winners. Confederates were too busy rebuilding to tell their side of the story so the Union glorified Lincoln. If the same thing happens to Bush, then in 150 years people will look up to that moron like he was the greatest man who ever lived. Revisionist history sucks.
Thank God. Next time I'm being castrated for disliking Lincoln and his actions, I'm dragging you into the ring with me.
Cheers!
[quote=UltraWill]Thank God. Next time I'm being castrated for disliking Lincoln and his actions, I'm dragging you into the ring with me.
Cheers![/quote]
Don't thank god, thank me. At least I'm real.
You can't prove that =D
If we're in agreement about god's existence or lack thereof, I don't have to prove anything. And if we're not, you're the one that has to prove it.
I was talking about YOUR existence.
Can someone break this down for me? What, aside from destroy the country, did Lincoln do? I know it wasn't about slavery, just like the current war in Iraq is not about democracy. But is there anything he did that was REALLY bad?
Starting a war that killed millions of people wasn't REALLY bad?
So what would he have to do to be REALLY bad?
[quote=Cody]EXAMPLE: The Estate Tax, which Bush got rid of, which said that in order to inherit a parents money and land and whatnot the benefactor must pay the government a cetain percentage, now, this may be bad for lower class farmers who do not have alot of money, and may have to sell the farm in order to pay the tax.
(heres the kicker) THERE HAS NOT BEEN ANY RECORD OF SOMEONE HAVING TO SELL THE FARM IN ORDER TO PAY THE STATE TAX!
now, lets look at this from the other side of the spectrum: the upper class (who would have to pay much much more than the lower class farmer, which in turn would have fueled the economy) now dont have to pay anything, thus trickling even more money into their pockets.
now, if this isnt a bad president, i dont know what is.[/quote]
You're an idiot.
The rich don't pay the Estate tax. They have money to find vehicles to get around it. They own their land through a corporation, and when they die, their kids get all the stock in the corporation, and they don't pay an estate tax.
This is all aside from the point that taxation is theft, and taxation does not stimulate the economy unless you're one of those dumbasses that thinks Keynesian economics actually makes some semblence of sense. In which case it stimulates the economy because you measure the economy in dollars and you count tax dollars twice, once when they were legitemately earned, and again when they were spent by the government. That doesn't make anyone better off. Keynes was a fascist, his economic theory is swiss cheese, and if you're using a real school of economics, i.e. the Austrian School, then it doesn't take more than ten seconds to figure that out.
I meant for my comment to be Ironic. Seems I didn't...
But, was Lincoln an idiot? That just might be the deciding factor for me. End millions of lives, but at least put on pants without assistance. *was this better at sarcasm?*
He wasn't an idiot. Just wrong. I do believe he could put his pants on without assistance, but I can't say for sure.
[quote=Zhwazi]Starting a war that killed millions of people wasn't REALLY bad?
So what would he have to do to be REALLY bad?[/quote]
I dont know if you are talking about Lincoln or Bush. But if you are talking about Lincoln,
1) He didnt start the war, the Confederates did (remember Fort Sumter) and
2) Millions of people didnt die, it was estamined around 970,000 died, 600,000 were troops.
[url=http://]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War#Aftermath[/url]
1. Lincoln intentionally got the Confederates to attack Fort Sumter so he'd have an excuse to go to war. If I went into your house with a bunch of guns and refused to leave, just because you fired the first shot doesn't mean you started it.
2. Okay, my numbers were off. Fact remains, the war killed a lot of people that didn't have to die.
Zhwazi's right about the war. Ol, Abe provoked them. While look at some Abe stuff though, look how they explain the war- torn wreckage that existed for years after the war ended:
Today, he is best known for ending slavery and [i]preserving the Union through his supervision of the Federal [/i](i.e., Northern) forces during the American Civil War.
oig. The thing with Abe was not so much that he did anything in particular to piss them off (with the exception of having weapons at or near fort sumter, which I am still Corroborating) except make it very clear he was going to whip the asses of the slaveowners (pun only intended in hindsight). The south new the North had a advantage and Abe was going to hurt them pretty bad if them didn't give up slavery.
Okay, it appears people are saying the same thing Zhwazi did, but with so much sugar- coating as to make it hardly recognizable. The southern states that didn't join the confederates in the beginning made clear Lincoln could not invade their land. Later they mention that the 'union troops' (before the fighting began there were troops stationed there) were fired on at fort sumter, and then ol' Abe sent 75000 troops (or tried to) to 'preserve the union'.
In doing so he actually destroyed the Union. He changed it from being a "Union" to a "Dominion". A Union would be voluntary. If it took a war to make the South rejoin the Union, it certainly wasn't voluntary. And any contract-type agreement between the North and South is necessarily invalid because it was "signed" at gunpoint. What we got instead was a dominion. The Feds now act as if they own the states and can tell them what to do.
How did Lincoln start a war when the day he was enogarated, South Carolina succeed? You have to show some facts that Lincoln intendtly started the war.
First of all, the word is "secede".
Second, secession is not an act of war. At the time the States all had the right to secede from the Union. It wasn't an act of war; it was exercising a right that it was generally understood existed under the rules of the Constitution. No provision of the Constitution prohibits States from seceding form the Union. Secession is not bad. It's only nationalistic ignoramus revisionist history which makes it look bad.
Third, please, if you have a question which is easily answered by Google, use Google.
I googled Lincoln "Fort Sumter" and this is the first page. Here's a snippet for you. Starting with the second paragraph:
[quote]Attempts by the Confederate government to settle its differences with the Union were spurned by Lincoln, and the Confederacy felt it could no longer tolerate the presense of a foreign force in its territory. Believing a conflict to be inevitable, Lincoln ingeniously devised a plan that would cause the Confederates to fire the first shot and thus, he hoped, inspire the states that had not yet seceded to unite in the effort to restore the Union.[/quote]
Lincoln only tried to "preserve the Union" because he was the president of it, and as such, he wanted to have power over as much territory as possible.
If you were married and wanted a divorce, and your wife held a gun to your head and told you she wanted to "preserve the union", you wouldn't automatically think she was doing something glorious and that you started it by wanting a divorce. Why change the rules when you play with international affairs? The principle is the same.
1. I think someone should open another topic, since this has nothing to do with George Bush
Heres what Wiki says:
[quote] The seven Confederate states seceded before Lincoln took office, declaring themselves an entirely new nation, the Confederate States of America. President Buchanan and President-elect Lincoln refused to recognize the Confederacy, which became the immediate cause of the war.[/quote]
When someone seceds from a nation force will be used. I cant decide to "bear my arms" and take over the city of New Orleans, and say "This here is the Natonal Republic of New Orleans!". The goverment would send out the DFA after me. The counrty didnt spilt n half because of Lincoln, it happened before he even took office. Saying seceding itsnt a sign of war is compelting wrong, CSA indently formed its own nation, starting a war. Even if CSA did form it own nation, it wouldnt surive anyway. Remember those good CSA warbonds? The ones that where worth nothing since the country was broke.
[quote=KCahill]When someone seceds from a nation force will be used.[/quote]
Not necessarily. Czechoslovakia broke into the Czech Republic and Slovakia and no force was used. Your wife won't try to force you back into a marriage you secede from (and if she does, she's a crazy bitch).
[qute]I cant decide to "bear my arms" and take over the city of New Orleans, and say "This here is the Natonal Republic of New Orleans!".[/quote]
Yes you can, but the other governments wouldn't be terribly happy about you displacing them, they want power over as much territory as possible.
[quote]The goverment would send out the DFA after me.[/quote]
The government is wrong. Just because the government does something doesn't mean it's right.
[quote]The counrty didnt spilt n half because of Lincoln, it happened before he even took office.[/quote]
They seceded after Lincoln was elected and before he took office. Because they knew he was going to take office and they didn't like that idea at all. The country DID split in half because of Lincoln. I'm not sure if there's a reverse post hoc propter hoc fallacy, but you just pulled it.
[quote]Saying seceding itsnt a sign of war is compelting wrong, CSA indently formed its own nation, starting a war.[/quote]
I said it wasn't an ACT of war. Secession is saying "Yes, well I don't really like being in this union of yours anymore, so I'm gonna go start my own. Okay? After all, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING IN THE CONTRACT (CONSTUTION) SAID WE CANNOT LEAVE THIS LITTLE CLUB." The Confederates WANTED peace. Lincoln would have none of that "peace" shit.
[quote]Even if CSA did form it own nation, it wouldnt surive anyway. Remember those good CSA warbonds? The ones that where worth nothing since the country was broke. [/quote]
It went broke because the Union waged a war against it. In case it never occured to you, war is fucking expensive, especially when you lose.
In short, secession is not an act of war, it's an act of rightful exit of a union, Lincoln caused the Civil war because he was a power-hungry fascist and did everything he could to not talk peace with the CSA.
I havent read all of the thread but I just thought I'd say that while I'm not a fan of Bush I think its a bit of a streatch to say he's the worst president we've ever had. Although he might be the worst in my memory.
Bush might be a horrible president, but that just shows that democracy sucks. I wouldn't say he's the worst president ever, all politicians are corrupt anyway.
I hate is when people complain about Lincoln, the civil war, and stuff that happened over 100 years ago. Lincoln is one of this county's most honored figures, and for good reason.. Then you talk about who provoked the early battles of the Civil War, and how the south should have been left alone, ect. Are you trying to say that you would prefer if the civil war had not happened? To have both the USA and the CSA coexisting? Seriously..
And as for Bush, I don't necessarily agree with everything he's done, as he has made some bad decisions, but I think people need to calm down about the whole thing. Yes, we should not have gone into Iraq in the first place, but now that we're there, it would be inhumane to allow a huge civil war that could potentially kill millions of people. Last time I checked, the Executive Branch didn't have some "pretend to be the legislative branch day" and vote to go to war when Congress was out of session. The majority of Congess wanted to go to war, we went to war. Last time I checked, that isn't entirely Bush's fault.
The other thing is that all politicians face controversy. Even Lincoln, who is often considered one of the best presidents, is a controversial figure to some people. This country has to learn that war isn't pretty, and that we can't just take the easy way out of everything by leaving a country we left in ruins to fend for itself.
And to the kid that was defending the 9/11 conspiracy, it's time you sat down and thought about it logically rather than believing everything some college kid tells you