Toughest US President

[quote]SinisterMinister wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
SinisterMinister wrote:
Read ‘Team Of Rivals’, even just the first few chapters, to get a sense of Lincoln and the stuff he was made of. It’s truly awe-inspiring, the manner in which he would be initially written off as an awkward, ugly, lanky hick, and would then proceed to to COMMAND the respect of everyone he encountered.

And those that didn’t respect him he threw in jail. The man was a bully and a tyrant.

mike

Hey Mike, interesting thought. I have a favor to ask, though: Put down your Howard Zinn Reader and provide me an example of what flawless leaders you hold in high regard. (Something tells me to expect Jimmy Carter and maybe
Neville Chamberlain…)
[/quote]

Something tells me you’re a moron.

I don’t ask for a flawless president, but I do demand one who isn’t a dictator. Who would be my top 5 presidents?

George Washington
Thomas Jefferson
Dwight Eisenhower
Teddy Roosevelt
Ronald Reagan

*Special mention for John Adams, who I can’t help but think should be somewhere in here.

Americans’ Lincoln worship is the pathetic outcome of why public schools are bad. You have a tyrant and a dictator who expanded federal power to levels far beyond what was intended for the fedgov; then you have that man canonized by the same establishment he empowered to play Big Brother with our lives.

Then you make sure that his greatness is shoved down our throats from a young age. This just opens the door for us to smile and take it when FDR follows suit and throws people in internment camps or enacts price controls and other socialist policies. So we canonize that bastard. Just wait until Hillary gets her universal health care. You’ll see just how tyrannical the fedgov can be if you haven’t figured it out yet.

I don’t blame you for liking Lincoln. I really don’t. Our schools are centers of indoctrination. They push PC bullshit down your throat. Until public schools are truly public (no federal oversight) you cannot rely on them properly educating your future citizens.

Then again, maybe I’m jumping to conclusions like you did. Perhaps you just like guys who think it’s okay to throw congressmen in jail, suspend habeus corpus, threaten to imprison supreme court justices who don’t agree with him, impose income taxes, and forge ahead with their plans when the supreme court tells them that what they are doing is unconstitutional and must stop.

mike

[quote]Corrosion wrote:

Harry S. Truman was one of the the toughest presidents ever, in my opinion…[/quote]

And don’t forget the toughest of all actions…murdering thousands of innocent civilians.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Corrosion wrote:

Harry S. Truman was one of the the toughest presidents ever, in my opinion…

And don’t forget the toughest of all actions…murdering thousands of innocent civilians.[/quote]

Uh oh, someone just smacked the hornet’s nest. I still don’t know how I feel about that. I just know that the end result was a good one.

mike

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
Americans’ Lincoln worship is the pathetic outcome of why public schools are bad. You have a tyrant and a dictator who expanded federal power to levels far beyond what was intended for the fedgov; then you have that man canonized by the same establishment he empowered to play Big Brother with our lives.

Then you make sure that his greatness is shoved down our throats from a young age. This just opens the door for us to smile and take it when FDR follows suit and throws people in internment camps or enacts price controls and other socialist policies… [/quote]

Mikey, I couldn’t agree with you any more than what you have said right here. Public school education is all about worshiping the State. There is nothing wrong with recognizing the values that makes something great but turning it into a religion that cannot be questioned is a form of tyranny.

Think back to every American History lesson you learned in elementary school. My favorites are the myth of Christopher Columbus and the American Indians. All I can remember is propaganda to justify State sponsored violence which we weren’t allowed to question.

People always confuse the greatness of this country with the greatness of the State and all of its fascist mechanisms. America is not great because of its government but rather because it has always had people willing to stand up to it when necessary.

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Corrosion wrote:

Harry S. Truman was one of the the toughest presidents ever, in my opinion…

And don’t forget the toughest of all actions…murdering thousands of innocent civilians.

Uh oh, someone just smacked the hornet’s nest. I still don’t know how I feel about that. I just know that the end result was a good one.

mike[/quote]

Well said.

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
Perhaps you just like guys who think it’s okay to throw congressmen in jail, suspend habeus corpus, threaten to imprison supreme court justices who don’t agree with him, impose income taxes, and forge ahead with their plans when the supreme court tells them that what they are doing is unconstitutional and must stop.

mike[/quote]

Congressmen going to jail is not an uncommon phenomenon.

Suspension of habeus corpus seems to be happening now.

Threatening justices? Threatening? At that particular time, the country was at war with itself. Times of war can call for extreme measures, especially if it’s your intentions of preserving the Union. By the way, what ever happened with their unconstitutional presumptions? Did any laws get repealed?

Furthermore, as for Lincoln being a tyrant… do I understand you properly that a duly elected official through a representative electorate is a tyrant? “In the exact sense, a tyrant is an individual who arrogates to himself the royal authority without having a right to it.” (Rousseau, “The Social Contract”) Your attempt to inflame notwithstanding, you use the term tyrant incorrectly. Neither was he a despot or dictator.

Keep your feelings out of your argument and you make a lot of sense. When your feelings get mixed in, you come off as a crackpot with a chip on your shoulder. That’s how you lose your credibility.

Edit: Andrew Jackson

[quote]kroby wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
Perhaps you just like guys who think it’s okay to throw congressmen in jail, suspend habeus corpus, threaten to imprison supreme court justices who don’t agree with him, impose income taxes, and forge ahead with their plans when the supreme court tells them that what they are doing is unconstitutional and must stop.

mike

Congressmen going to jail is not an uncommon phenomenon.[/quote]

Yes, but congressmen going to jail simply for disagreeing with the president is far less common. “In Maryland alone, Lincoln’s troops arrested and imprisoned without trial a mayor, a congressman, and thrity-one state legislators. Even Francis Scott Key’s grandson was not spared.”–Andrew Napolitano Constitution in Exile.

He also had an Ohio congressman deported for going against his income tax initiatives. A Maryland confederate sympathizer John Merryman was arrested, then appealed for a writ of Habeus Corpus to the Supreme Court. It was granted. Lincoln blew it off.[quote]

Suspension of habeus corpus seems to be happening now.
[/quote]

Umm, okay, and it’s wrong that they are doing it now. What’s your point?

“Necessity is the plea of tyrants and slaves alike.”–William Pitt. Indeed. The country was at war with itself. But what people fail to see is that Lincoln preserved only the geographic Union while giving the coup de grace to the actual United States; you know, the one in the Constitution. He did this for what? He didn’t do it to end slavery. He did it to prevent a geographical breakup. The fact that the South would have come grovelling back in 15 years aside, how were Lincoln’s acts justified? The fact that Abe is given the love he has is a testament to the fact that history is written by the winners.

Indeed. If my feelings were uninvolved I suppose I would have no desire to argue. I will keep your advice in mind. I can see how you would think that, and hell, sometimes I feel that I sound crazy, but unfortunately that is going to happen when you stand up against someone who has been canonized.

mike

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
kroby wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
Perhaps you just like guys who think it’s okay to throw congressmen in jail, suspend habeus corpus, threaten to imprison supreme court justices who don’t agree with him, impose income taxes, and forge ahead with their plans when the supreme court tells them that what they are doing is unconstitutional and must stop.

mike

Congressmen going to jail is not an uncommon phenomenon.

Yes, but congressmen going to jail simply for disagreeing with the president is far less common. “In Maryland alone, Lincoln’s troops arrested and imprisoned without trial a mayor, a congressman, and thrity-one state legislators. Even Francis Scott Key’s grandson was not spared.”–Andrew Napolitano Constitution in Exile.

He also had an Ohio congressman deported for going against his income tax initiatives. A Maryland confederate sympathizer John Merryman was arrested, then appealed for a writ of Habeus Corpus to the Supreme Court. It was granted. Lincoln blew it off.

Suspension of habeus corpus seems to be happening now.

Umm, okay, and it’s wrong that they are doing it now. What’s your point?

Threatening justices? Threatening? At that particular time, the country was at war with itself. Times of war can call for extreme measures, especially if it’s your intentions of preserving the Union. By the way, what ever happened with their unconstitutional presumptions? Did any laws get repealed?

“Necessity is the plea of tyrants and slaves alike.”–William Pitt. Indeed. The country was at war with itself. But what people fail to see is that Lincoln preserved only the geographic Union while giving the coup de grace to the actual United States; you know, the one in the Constitution. He did this for what? He didn’t do it to end slavery. He did it to prevent a geographical breakup. The fact that the South would have come grovelling back in 15 years aside, how were Lincoln’s acts justified? The fact that Abe is given the love he has is a testament to the fact that history is written by the winners.

Furthermore, as for Lincoln being a tyrant… do I understand you properly that a duly elected official through a representative electorate is a tyrant? “In the exact sense, a tyrant is an individual who arrogates to himself the royal authority without having a right to it.” (Rousseau, “The Social Contract”) Your attempt to inflame notwithstanding, you use the term tyrant incorrectly. Neither was he a despot or dictator.

I’m not exactly a fan of Rousseau, and I do not use his definition of tyrant.

Oxford English Dictionary (because that’s the biggest dictionary in the house):

TYRANT–1.an oppressive or cruel ruler 2. a person exercising power arbitrarily or cruelly 3. an absolute ruler who seized power without the legal right

DICTATOR–1. a ruler with (often usurped) unrestricted authority 2. a person with supreme authority in any sphere. 3. a domineering person

DESPOT–1. an absolute ruler 2. tyrant or oppressor

Now how is does Lincoln not fit? Besides, would you dare not call Mussoulini or Hitler, or Ahmidenejad or Chavez any of these names since they were elected as well?

Keep your feelings out of your argument and you make a lot of sense. When your feelings get mixed in, you come off as a crackpot with a chip on your shoulder. That’s how you lose your credibility.

Indeed. If my feelings were uninvolved I suppose I would have no desire to argue. I will keep your advice in mind. I can see how you would think that, and hell, sometimes I feel that I sound crazy, but unfortunately that is going to happen when you stand up against someone who has been canonized.

mike

[/quote]

Mike,

You might want to steer clear of using Lincoln as an example in your quest. His excellence is beyond compare. Arguments made against him, instantly become invalid.

No American ever came farther and did more for his country.

The end justified the means.

Period.

Oh, it’s a toss-up between Andrew Jackson and T.R. as to who was the toughest.

Andrew Jackson was routinely too sick to sit a horse. Howevever, once he heard that his men were going to desert, he walked out in front of about 1000 of them.

He picked up his gun, pointed it at them, and said you aren’t going anywhere.

They backed down.

Or, as President, an assassin walked up, pulled out a gun, it misfired. Jackson grabbed the gun from the assassin and went after him before being restrained. He was going to pistol whip him. I think he was in his mid-60’s.

T.R. I don’t have to say much. Just pick up a biography. Read about his charge in Cuba, his fistfight out west, or sitting in an open boat with a cattle rustler for 1000 miles.

Or, you could discuss him going blind after fist fighting a champion in the White House.

You’ve already discussed, “It takes MORE THAN THAT TO KILL A BULL MOOSE!!!”

All of this after having asthma so severe he was told upon graduation at Harvard that he had a year to live.

Everyone else is second tier next to these guys.

JeffR

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Corrosion wrote:

Harry S. Truman was one of the the toughest presidents ever, in my opinion…

And don’t forget the toughest of all actions…murdering thousands of innocent civilians.[/quote]

I actually don’t agree with his decision…but it was undoubtedly one of the hardest ever made. I’m not going to argue about it because the title of the thread isn’t “Nicest US President” or “Smartest US President” it’s “TOUGHEST US President”. Being tough is about making a decision you believe is right, and dealing with the consequences of it. He did that.