# Who's the worst American president ever?



## god hand (Nov 15, 2005)

Who's the worst American president ever? And please dont say Bush


----------



## NeilPearson (Nov 15, 2005)

god hand said:
			
		

> Who's the worst American president ever? And please dont say Bush



What if you really believe he is?


----------



## god hand (Nov 15, 2005)

NeilPearson said:
			
		

> What if you really believe he is?


Then your an idiot


----------



## tucker01 (Nov 15, 2005)

who gives a fuck


----------



## The Monkey Man (Nov 15, 2005)

In my time...

Clinton.

Just and only for the fact that he opened the free trade with China
instantly selling out formerly protected technology,
and later caused the liquidation of US jobs

Fucking Sucks!


----------



## NeilPearson (Nov 15, 2005)

If you want to see really, really horrible leaders, look at the Canadian Prime Ministers.


----------



## gococksDJS (Nov 15, 2005)

NeilPearson said:
			
		

> If you want to see really, really horrible leaders, look at the Canadian Prime Ministers.


 Look at France right now. They can't control a bunch of 13 year olds who run around burning cars at night. March on their country with sharpened cro-magnon tools and it's a coup.


----------



## Bazooka Tooth (Nov 15, 2005)

George W. Bush.....There is no doubt about it...especially in my liftime, Im only 23...


----------



## P-funk (Nov 15, 2005)

Bazooka Tooth said:
			
		

> George W. Bush.....There is no doubt about it...especially in my liftime, Im only 23...




why?  you have to give a reason.  It is to easy to say "so and so".  Say why you think that.


----------



## gococksDJS (Nov 15, 2005)

P-funk said:
			
		

> why? you have to give a reason. It is to easy to say "so and so". Say why you think that.


 Why do we have to give a reason?


----------



## clemson357 (Nov 15, 2005)

P-funk said:
			
		

> why?


because the bandwagon said so


----------



## NeilPearson (Nov 15, 2005)

gococksDJS said:
			
		

> Look at France right now. They can't control a bunch of 13 year olds who run around burning cars at night. March on their country with sharpened cro-magnon tools and it's a coup.



Makes sense - Canadian Prime Ministers pretty much need to get the French vote to get elected.


----------



## gococksDJS (Nov 15, 2005)

clemson357 said:
			
		

> because the bandwagon said so


 Come on Clemson, jump on the Top 25 bandwagon.


----------



## P-funk (Nov 15, 2005)

gococksDJS said:
			
		

> Why do we have to give a reason?



for the reason that Clemson just gave.

If you know what you are talking about then giving a reason as to why so and so is not a good president in your opinion shouldn't be that hard.  If you are uneducated and just saying it because the bandwagon said so or your dad told you what to think it is another story.


----------



## gococksDJS (Nov 15, 2005)

I was just playin' P


----------



## tucker01 (Nov 15, 2005)

NeilPearson said:
			
		

> If you want to see really, really horrible leaders, look at the Canadian Prime Ministers.




Damn Straight.  It is disgusting the options we have.


----------



## MyK (Nov 15, 2005)

Hilary Clinton


----------



## HANK-VISSER (Nov 15, 2005)

bush


----------



## LexusGS (Nov 15, 2005)

god hand said:
			
		

> Then your an idiot


Drop that Atittude son.


----------



## Bazooka Tooth (Nov 15, 2005)

P-funk said:
			
		

> why?  you have to give a reason.  It is to easy to say "so and so".  Say why you think that.




because I dont trust him at all, also I just dont see a reason why anyone would like him....you dont have to hate him or blame him for everything, but what is there to like? honestly? I havent seen or heard of him doing anything positive at all.


----------



## GFR (Nov 15, 2005)

*Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George Bush Sr. , Bill Clinton, George Bush Jr....all sucked ass.*


----------



## Nick+ (Nov 15, 2005)

What about Blair?  He licks Bush.


----------



## GFR (Nov 15, 2005)

http://www.wildnesswithin.com/worst.html
*America's Top 10 Presidents*


*  vs.

'The Worst President in All of American History'*


----------



## ALBOB (Nov 15, 2005)

Sorry, I'm gonna change the rules a bit.  Instead of naming the worst person, I'm gonna tell you what I think was the worst mistake.  (This one may surprise those of you who know how much of a conservative Republican I am.)

George Bush #1 not going into Iraq and getting rid of Saddam after liberating Kuwait in Gulf War I.  We were already there.  It would have been nothing to just keep marching a few more miles to finish the job.  Instead, we abandoned the Iraqi citizens and left them to deal with this murderous maniac who brought instability to the entire region.  There are Iraqi people who don't trust us to this day because we abandoned them after the first Gulf War.  He should have learned his lesson from the history books and what Patton wanted to do in Europe after WWII.  Same scenario, same mistake.  I know, I know, that wasn't part of the UN resolution.  So freaking what?  The UN has proven time and time again to be nothing more than a cover for a gigantic embezzlement machine.


----------



## Decker (Nov 15, 2005)

Of 415 historians who expressed a view of President Bush???s administration to this point as a success or failure, 338 classified it as a failure and 77 as a success. (Moreover, it seems likely that at least eight of those who said it is a success were being sarcastic, since seven said Bush???s presidency is only the best since Clinton???s and one named Millard Fillmore.) Twelve percent of all the historians who responded rate the current presidency the worst in all of American history, not too far behind the 19 percent who see it at this point as an overall success. 
http://hnn.us/articles/5019.html


----------



## god hand (Nov 15, 2005)

Herbert Hoover and the Great Depression


----------



## Dale Mabry (Nov 15, 2005)

I would have to go with GW Bush.  I liked Reagan and the first Bush, liked Clinton as well.  I also don't want to say someone who I was not alive for was the worst president because it would be based on other's testimony.  Here are my reasons...

1)Iraq.  Regardless of if he didn't mislead, he certainly didn't go ahead and confirm the "facts" before jumping into a war, prolly something you should do when other people's lives are at stake.

2)Economy.  I don't think cutting taxes for the rich is an appropriate way to bring our economy out of the crapper.  Regardless of who's fault the bad economy was (Some say Clinton, some say outside factors ie. Bin Laden), I don't think reducing the gov'ts intake of cash is the right way to pay for a war on terror.  I could definitely be wrong though, not a big economics guy.

3)All the goddamned religion.  Nuff said.

4)Not being able to admit a mistake when it is blatantly obvious that one occured.

Now, I don't think this is is all of his fault, the whole gov't is in the shitter.  How else can you explain congress taking the Schiavo case and MLB steroid stuff when there are far worse concerns.

Clinton wasn't great, but when weighing the shit he did, he is a distant second to Bush, Jr.


----------



## maniclion (Nov 15, 2005)

Maniclion doesn't care for Bush people.


----------



## lnvanry (Nov 15, 2005)

President Bush Is 'Average,' 
But Far From Ordinary
By *JAMES TARANTO*
September 12, 2005; Page A17

Ask someone to describe the presidency of George W. Bush, and "average" is not a word you're likely to hear. Mr. Bush's detractors treat him with a level of vituperation unseen since the days of Franklin D. Roosevelt; some even blame him for bad weather. His admirers don't go so far as to credit him when the sun shines, but their affection for him is palpable.

So it may come as a surprise that in a new survey of scholars ranking the presidents, Mr. Bush finishes almost exactly in the middle of the pack. He ranks No. 19 out of 40, and he rates 3.01 on a 5-point scale, just a hair's breadth above the middlemost possible figure. But this is no gentleman's C. Mr. Bush's rating is average because it is an average, of rankings given by 85 professors of history, politics, law and economics.

Most such scholarly polls have a strong liberal bias, reflecting academia's far-left tilt. But this survey -- conducted by James Lindgren of Northwestern University Law School for the Federalist Society and The Wall Street Journal -- aimed at ideological balance. The scholars were chosen with an eye toward balancing liberals and conservatives, and Mr. Lindgren asked each participant about his political orientation, then adjusted the average to give Democratic- and Republican-leaning scholars equal weight.

Mr. Bush's rating thus reflects the same sharp partisan divide that gave him a shade under 51% of the popular vote last year. GOP-leaning scholars rated Mr. Bush the 6th-best president of all time, while Democratic ones rated him No. 35, or 6th-worst. Even Bill Clinton -- 13th among Democrats, 34th among Republicans -- isn't as controversial.

If this result reflects the passions of the moment, how will history judge George W. Bush? Today's opinion polls are no guide: Warren G. Harding was a lot more popular when he died in office than Harry S. Truman was when he left, yet Harding now rates as a failure and Truman as near great.

Here's one way of thinking about the question: The three great presidents -- Washington, Lincoln and FDR -- all faced unprecedented challenges, all responded to them boldly, and all succeeded. Mr. Bush has met the first two of these criteria: The 9/11 attacks were his unprecedented challenge; setting out to democratize the Middle East was his bold response. Will he succeed -- not just in bringing stability and representative government to Iraq but in beginning a process that spreads freedom throughout the region? That will determine whether he joins the top tiers of presidents.

If he falls short, he may still get credit for trying. The lowest-ranking presidents tend to be not those who aimed high and missed, but those whose administrations were plagued by scandal (Harding, Nixon) or who were passive as crises built (Buchanan, Carter).








If Mr. Bush's vision turns out to have been overambitious, the more salient precedents may be the presidencies of Woodrow Wilson and Lyndon B. Johnson. Both had bold, forward-looking agendas, and both suffered enormous setbacks. Wilson sought to make the world safe for democracy, but America instead turned inward, leaving the world decidedly unsafe for democracy until after World War II. Johnson waged war both in Vietnam and on poverty, with one loss and one draw.

Yet neither one is judged a failure in the survey: Wilson is above average at No. 11, and Johnson is average at No. 18. Like Mr. Bush, both are more highly regarded within their own party. Wilson finishes 7th among Democrats and 23rd among Republicans; LBJ, 9th among Democrats and 31st among Republicans.

One thing that is sure to prove irrelevant to Mr. Bush's legacy is the intensity of today's Angry Left. FDR faced an Angry Right in his day, but Republicans in the survey rank him the 5th-best president. Even Ronald Reagan, out of office less than two decades, ranks a respectable 14th among Democrats. Mr. Bush is a polarizing figure today, but if his policies prove successful over time, even his detractors will grudgingly come around.


----------



## lnvanry (Nov 15, 2005)

If you don't feel like reading the above then just look at the chart.

It was a survey done by professors (who are usually democratic by a landslide), but this survey maintained an equal balance of DEM/REP ratio.

That's why GWB is the middle...the current rep love and the current dem hate him, which puts him in the middle.

If you do take the time read the Wall Street article then you will see most presidents true ratings don't come out until 15years or later...It takes a while for policy and war effects to settle in


----------



## god hand (Nov 15, 2005)

lnvanry said:
			
		

> If you don't feel like reading the above then just look at the chart.


That what I did!


----------



## Decker (Nov 15, 2005)

lnvanry said:
			
		

> President Bush Is 'Average,'
> But Far From Ordinary
> By *JAMES TARANTO*
> September 12, 2005; Page A17


Reagan a top 10 president? No bias there. Why I was just waxing eloquent the other day how the great ones--Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln and Reagan made the US of A the greatest place on the planet. Anything associated w/ the Wall Street Journal's opinion page is shit...the news section is good, but the editorial page is a bunch of rightwing hacks--you know, supply siders. The credibility of the Federalist Society stands alone. hahahaha


----------



## Decker (Nov 15, 2005)

Who the fuck is James Polk?


----------



## lnvanry (Nov 15, 2005)

Decker said:
			
		

> Reagan a top 10 president? No bias there. Why I was just waxing eloquent the other day how the great ones--Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln and Reagan made the US of A the greatest place on the planet. Anything associated w/ the Wall Street Journal's opinion page is shit...the news section is good, but the editorial page is a bunch of rightwing hacks--you know, supply siders. The credibility of the Federalist Society stands alone. hahahaha


Reagan ending the cold war might have "something" to do w/ it


----------



## lnvanry (Nov 15, 2005)

Decker said:
			
		

> Who the fuck is James Polk?


  R U serious?


----------



## lnvanry (Nov 15, 2005)

Decker said:
			
		

> Reagan a top 10 president? No bias there. Why I was just waxing eloquent the other day how the great ones--Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln and Reagan made the US of A the greatest place on the planet. Anything associated w/ the Wall Street Journal's opinion page is shit...the news section is good, but the editorial page is a bunch of rightwing hacks--you know, *supply siders*. The credibility of the Federalist Society stands alone. hahahaha


 
This is true, but the data isn't from them....the writing is though


----------



## maniclion (Nov 15, 2005)

GW Bush spells Free as FEER.


----------



## Decker (Nov 15, 2005)

lnvanry said:
			
		

> Reagan ending the cold war might have "something" to do w/ it


And how did he end the cold war?  

oops gotta run, I really can't wait to read your response b/c I think have an answer of my own.


----------



## Decker (Nov 15, 2005)

lnvanry said:
			
		

> R U serious?


No, I just thought the statement read funny.


----------



## lnvanry (Nov 15, 2005)

I love the guy, but even I'll admit he's not the brightest when it comes to speaking and vocabulary


----------



## BigDyl (Nov 15, 2005)

lnvanry said:
			
		

> I love the guy, but even I'll admit he's not the brightest when it comes to speaking and vocabulary




Sadly you need these fundamental abilities to be able to run a country...


----------



## BigDyl (Nov 15, 2005)

lnvanry said:
			
		

> Reagan ending the cold war might have "something" to do w/ it



No one would question this statement.  No one would say the Cold War was comming to end anyways...


----------



## god hand (Nov 15, 2005)

lnvanry said:
			
		

> Reagan ending the cold war might have "something" to do w/ it







			
				BigDyl said:
			
		

> No one would question this statement.  No one would say the Cold War was comming to end anyways...


OWNED!


----------



## GFR (Nov 15, 2005)

lnvanry said:
			
		

>


That chart is a joke!!!!
Did you make it up??? or Pull it off the Ronald Reagan web site...top 10 my ass  


Lyndon Johnson #18


----------



## P-funk (Nov 15, 2005)

Bazooka Tooth said:
			
		

> because I dont trust him at all, also I just dont see a reason why anyone would like him....you dont have to hate him or blame him for everything, but what is there to like? honestly? I havent seen or heard of him doing anything positive at all.




that is exactly why I asked you to give a reason.  Look at Dale's reply.  Now that is a reason for not liking a president.  Clearly you have no clue what you are talking about!  Way to jump in the band wagon.


----------



## lnvanry (Nov 15, 2005)

god hand said:
			
		

> OWNED!


 
 right 

the cold war is not over  Whose dumber...dyl for acutally thinking the cold war isn't over or god hand thinking I was owned for a dubious statement 

read a book!


And no dyl you don't need to be a good speaker w/ a complex vocab to be pres....it happened already


----------



## Rob_NC (Nov 16, 2005)

Decker said:
			
		

> Of 415 historians who expressed a view of President Bush???s administration to this point as a success or failure, 338 classified it as a failure and 77 as a success. (Moreover, it seems likely that at least eight of those who said it is a success were being sarcastic, since seven said Bush???s presidency is only the best since Clinton???s and one named Millard Fillmore.) Twelve percent of all the historians who responded rate the current presidency the worst in all of American history, not too far behind the 19 percent who see it at this point as an overall success.
> http://hnn.us/articles/5019.html




Were these views based on profesional judgement citing facts or merely personal opinion?


----------



## Rob_NC (Nov 16, 2005)

I'm not going to answer this as we all have our opinions.  And the only way to voice your opinion is to vote.

For the record, I voted GWB last election because I couldn't find reason enough to trust Kerry and his witch of a wife. That doesn't mean I was in favor of GWB.


----------



## The Monkey Man (Nov 16, 2005)

lnvanry said:
			
		

> right
> 
> the cold war is not over Whose dumber...*dyl for acutally thinking the cold war isn't over* or god hand thinking I was owned for a dubious statement
> 
> read a book!




 

Ahem...

Whats the 2nd most powerful nation on the planet???

Answer = China

What type of GOVT do they have??

Answer = Communist

Conclusion = As long as we are threatened with nuclear and biological attack by a rival form of GOVT...... The cold war lives!

Once we get a President who isn't lining his fucking pockets with money,
we can put the commies out of business, and make them buy our products
and way of life (like we did with the USSR)


----------



## aceshigh (Nov 16, 2005)

well jfk didnt come up with too many policies after he was shot


----------



## lnvanry (Nov 16, 2005)

The Monkey Man said:
			
		

> Ahem...
> 
> Whats the 2nd most powerful nation on the planet???
> 
> ...


They aren't even close to being the second most powerful nation.
You just buy into all the hype....they went from one of the poorest nations to a moderately poor nation and everyone thinks that they are going to continue their exponential growth...which they won't.

Also China isn't a pure communists state...clearly.  They are nothing like what the Soviet Union was...nothing.  They are a hybrid of communism and capitalisic economy.  THe gov't does not give you your job, the gov't doesn't let you own property, and taxes are sky high.

I can't believe you guys really think the cold war is still going on \


I can't wait for some one to debate the whole China "problem" with me.
I just finished my disertation with Sino-American relations.


----------



## P-funk (Nov 16, 2005)

lnvanry said:
			
		

> They aren't even close to being the second most powerful nation.
> You just buy into all the hype....they went from one of the poorest nations to a moderately poor nation and everyone thinks that they are going to continue their exponential growth...which they won't.
> 
> Also China isn't a pure communists state...clearly.  They are nothing like what the Soviet Union was...nothing.  They are a hybrid of communism and capitalisic economy.  THe gov't does not give you your job, the gov't doesn't let you own property, and taxes are sky high.
> ...




I agree.  I don't but it either.  China is ridiculously poor.  They aren't a powerful nation at all.  I think it is a bunch of hype too.


----------



## The Monkey Man (Nov 16, 2005)

What does wealth have to do with sheer manufacturing power??

And the power to enslave your citizens to man that capability.


----------



## kbm8795 (Nov 16, 2005)

god hand said:
			
		

> Who's the worst American president ever? And please dont say Bush




Okay. President Cuckoo-Bananas


----------



## lnvanry (Nov 16, 2005)

The Monkey Man said:
			
		

> What does wealth have to do with sheer manufacturing power??
> 
> And the power to enslave your citizens to man that capability.


with that logic than India will be the most powerful, since their population will exceed 1.5billion by 2015


----------



## Nick+ (Nov 16, 2005)

India and China are powerful enough to have drained manufacturing+ service jobs out of Europe (and no doubt the USA too). 

Every single  jig saw, drill,  PC/-my-laptop, dvd player etc etc seems to be now made in China. And yes , things are getting really cheap, but then they have to be , because loads of people in 'the West' are losing any sort of security, by either having no job at all or a damned insecure one...........


----------



## gococksDJS (Nov 16, 2005)

Nick+ said:
			
		

> India and China are powerful enough to have drained manufacturing+ service jobs out of Europe (and no doubt the USA too).
> 
> Every single jig saw, drill, PC/-my-laptop, dvd player etc etc seems to be now made in China. And yes , things are getting really cheap, but then they have to be , because loads of people in 'the West' are losing any sort of security, by either having no job at all or a damned insecure one...........


 So that's why you've been rioting every night?


----------



## Nick+ (Nov 16, 2005)

I've not been rioting , that's the young people in the suburbs bored with their playstation.


----------



## lnvanry (Nov 16, 2005)

Nick+ said:
			
		

> India and China are powerful enough to have drained manufacturing+ service jobs out of Europe (and no doubt the USA too).
> 
> Every single jig saw, drill, PC/-my-laptop, dvd player etc etc seems to be now made in China. And yes , things are getting really cheap, but then they have to be , because loads of people in 'the West' are losing any sort of security, by either having no job at all or a damned insecure one...........


the only people losing their jobs are the uneducated...the were 53 million jobs created in U.S. last year...I am assuming they were not on the assembly line.

India/china are not "draining" anything...The US and Europe are hand over the manufacturing.  Manufacturing is no longer profitable anymore (for the most part) due to wage increases and strict labor laws.  This is a natural process.


----------



## gococksDJS (Nov 16, 2005)

Nick+ said:
			
		

> I've not been rioting , that's the young people in the suburbs bored with their playstation.


 Maybe the French should release XBOX 360 a week early? Calm the riots.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Nov 16, 2005)

The Reagan/Bush administration did what for America to earn him a 10th place spot?

Facts ... these are not conjecture but part of their history.

1 ... The October Surprise ... in order to prevent Jimmy Carter from getting credit for their release the Reagan/Bush candidacy used Bush's CIA connections to delay the release of hostages held in Iran at the end of Carter's administration..

2 ... Neil Bush (one of the Bush brothers ... kinda like Billy was to Jimmy without the beer) was one of the major players in the Silverado Savings & Loan scandal. The boys had his indictment delayed until after their inauguration.

3 ... the Iran Contra fiasco. After a congressional investigation in the matters of Iran vs Iraq it was decided that we needed to stop sending arms to Iran. Furthermore it was also decided in a separate investigation that the CIA was found to be aiding in killing off leaders of the communist led government of Nicaragua. It was concluded this was another bad idea and thereafter illegal. Reagan was almost impeached for that but for the shredding of the paper trail, his henchman Ollie North not snitching him out, and laughably the acceptance of his "I don't recall" response to questions about his involvement.

4 ... Manuel Noriega. Seriously people that was out right support of some serious drug dealing from the largest cocaine cartel that had yet to exist. Not to mention all the other "aid" he gave good old Manny.


----------



## god hand (Nov 16, 2005)

P-funk said:
			
		

> I agree.  I don't but it either.  China is ridiculously poor.  They aren't a powerful nation at all.  I think it is a bunch of hype too.


They probably said the same thing about Germany post WWI.    We all know what happen because of that!


----------



## lnvanry (Nov 16, 2005)

god hand said:
			
		

> They probably said the same thing about Germany post WWI.  We all know what happen because of that!


not even close godspank....Germany was a leader in science, technology, and didn't have 15% of its population in abosulte poverty (which is something that has been erraticated in the US for the most part).  Germany was also aggressive, which China has not been...yet.  In fact China has lost its territory over the past century...hongkong, tawain


----------



## The Monkey Man (Nov 16, 2005)

lnvanry said:
			
		

> India/china are not "draining" anything...The US and Europe are hand over the manufacturing


And what do you think Communists are going to do with that manufacturing when the time is right?



			
				lnvanry said:
			
		

> Manufacturing is no longer profitable anymore (for the most part) due to wage increases and strict labor laws


Tell that to the few thousand auto workers
who are out of work (again) this year


----------



## carlito cool (Nov 16, 2005)

nixon      clinton  on the other hand  MY HERO


----------



## maniclion (Nov 16, 2005)

lnvanry said:
			
		

> In fact China has lost its territory over the past century...hongkong, tawain


China regained Hong Kong in 1997, I was there.


----------



## lnvanry (Nov 16, 2005)

The Monkey Man said:
			
		

> And what do you think Communists are going to do with that manufacturing when the time is right?
> 
> Tell that to the few thousand auto workers
> who are out of work (again) this year


and they will continue to be out of work....hopefully their children can get a degree not be forced in to blue collar work.


----------



## lnvanry (Nov 16, 2005)

maniclion said:
			
		

> China regained Hong Kong in 1997, I was there.


I know....My point was that China isn't agressively using force to expand


----------



## bio-chem (Nov 16, 2005)

The Monkey Man said:
			
		

> Ahem...
> 
> Whats the 2nd most powerful nation on the planet???
> 
> ...


i think people need to study world economics a little better. China is hardly a communist country, at least not in the traditional sense of communism started by Marx or even Lennin. China over the last 10 years and especially with the integration of Hong Kong (which was even more capitalist than the US) has been moving more and more capitalist in order to survive in the world economy

people please think this over a little more before you post. China is currently one of the cheapest places to produce goods.  that is why we buy from them. (this is just good capitalism at work.)  Chinas per person income is currently growing at a very rapid pace, meaning they will soon turn into a consumer economy as well. (the more money people have, they more they spend on luxury items) China is even begining to outsource a lot of mfg to other countries (such as malaysia) due to the fact other countries can produce it cheaper.  (moving to the low cost provider is econ 101). 

Bush is not lining his pockets. what a joke.  with Russia they bought our products after they fell. China will buy our products and then fall.  and we shouldnt get them to move to our way of life. they are an eastern culture where we are western, its completely different.


----------



## The Monkey Man (Nov 16, 2005)

maniclion said:
			
		

> China regained Hong Kong in 1997, I was there.


China refused Taiwan's independance declarations and moved troops
onto the island


----------



## The Monkey Man (Nov 16, 2005)

lnvanry said:
			
		

> and they will continue to be out of work....hopefully their children can get a degree not be forced in to blue collar work.


Hopefully they don't have children


----------



## bio-chem (Nov 16, 2005)

lnvanry said:
			
		

> and they will continue to be out of work....hopefully their children can get a degree not be forced in to blue collar work.


whats wrong with blue collar work?  there are still oportunities for laborers who get laid off, because of downsizing.  the govt gives a lot of money so people can get re-trained.  electricians, pipefitters, mechanics, are all blue collar and can still make a decent wage in this country to support themselves and their families.


----------



## The Monkey Man (Nov 16, 2005)

bio-chem said:
			
		

> Bush is not lining his pockets. what a joke. with Russia they bought our products after they fell. China will buy our products and then fall. and we shouldnt get them to move to our way of life. they are an eastern culture where we are western, its completely different.


You are the joke.  Why do they need to buy our products when they
already have them, they fucking make most of everything
and when we invent and patent a new technology, they simply steal that,
reverse engineer it and build it themselves...  I.E.= No profit for the US who wasted all its money to research, develop & test the technology


----------



## lnvanry (Nov 16, 2005)

There is nothing wrong w/ blue collar work....my grandfather and half of my fahter's life was spent in that labor market.  My point is that the days of 1950 are over...where there was opputunity regardless of educational background.  W/ out it your chances of monetary success are very slim...not extinct, but close enough.


Our nation is no longer becoming a mass producer or a natural resource giant.  Our nation is shifting to a knowledge powerhouse....that's why were have so much more emphasis on intellectual property than the rest of the world....we all know where knowledge comes from.


----------



## bio-chem (Nov 16, 2005)

The Monkey Man said:
			
		

> You are the joke. Why do they need to buy our products when they
> already have them, they fucking make most of everything
> and when we invent and patent a new technology, they simply steal that,
> reverse engineer it and build it themselves... I.E.= No profit for the US who wasted all its money to research, develop & test the technology


did you read what i wrote. as Chinas income per person goes up they will no longer be the low cost provider. they will turn into a consumer economy like we are. they will not buy from themselves just like we do not buy from ourselves. remember 250 years ago we were the low cost provider?  if we were wasting our time and money when we did research companies wouldnt do it. obviously those doing research in america see a benifit in it. they are in the buisness of making money and so they see a monetary benifit in research. you have a very limited understanding of economics and it shows.


----------



## bio-chem (Nov 16, 2005)

lnvanry said:
			
		

> There is nothing wrong w/ blue collar work....my grandfather and half of my fahter's life was spent in that labor market. My point is that the days of 1950 are over...where there was opputunity regardless of educational background. W/ out it your chances of monetary success are very slim...not extinct, but close enough.
> 
> 
> Our nation is no longer becoming a mass producer or a natural resource giant. Our nation is shifting to a knowledge powerhouse....that's why were have so much more emphasis on intellectual property than the rest of the world....we all know where knowledge comes from.


agreed. good post.   we are a country of entrepreneurs and many non-college educated are making great money. look at bill gates as an extreme example. the guy is a college drop out.


----------



## lnvanry (Nov 16, 2005)

bio-chem said:
			
		

> did you read what i wrote. *as Chinas income per person goes up they will no longer be the low cost provider. they will turn into a consumer economy like we are. they will not buy from themselves just like we do not buy from ourselves. remember *250 years ago we were the low cost provider? if we were wasting our time and money when we did research companies wouldnt do it. obviously those doing research in america see a benifit in it. they are in the buisness of making money and so they see a monetary benifit in research. you have a very limited understanding of economics and it shows.


  Their growth will level off as did ours...I get so sick and tired or reading and hearing professors lecture on how they are going to suprass us


----------



## GFR (Nov 16, 2005)




----------



## lnvanry (Nov 16, 2005)

don't be jealous foreman


----------



## god hand (Nov 16, 2005)

lnvanry said:
			
		

> not even close godspank....Germany was a leader in science, technology, and didn't have 15% of its population in abosulte poverty (which is something that has been erraticated in the US for the most part).  Germany was also aggressive, which China has not been...yet.  In fact China has lost its territory over the past century...hongkong, tawain


Your one stupid ass mofo! After WWI, Germany was a total wasteland and not only that, the whole damn country was bankrupt they owned billions. Now go SMD and after that tasty treat STFU!


----------



## lnvanry (Nov 16, 2005)

god hand said:
			
		

> Your one stupid ass mofo! After WWI, Germany was a total wasteland and not only that, the whole damn country was *bankrupt they* *owned *billions. Now go SMD and after that tasty treat STFU!


 
owned....bankrupt?   

c'mon brother....where did you go to school.  Germany was a waste land?  Right  considering that they were the pioneers in facist culture, physics, rocketry, aviation, the list goes on...what a waster land 


now go SMD


----------



## god hand (Nov 16, 2005)

lnvanry said:
			
		

> owned....bankrupt?
> 
> c'mon brother....where did you go to school.  Germany was a waste land?  Right  considering that they were the pioneers in facist culture, physics, rocketry, aviation, the list goes on...what a waster land
> 
> ...


This is a fuckin forum not a 10 page essay for my english class   and if u new anything about history u would know that their country was ruined and was looking for someone to lead them like in the old days. Now go BMD me like that Mc Donald's bitch!


----------



## GFR (Nov 16, 2005)

lnvanry said:
			
		

> don't be jealous foreman


----------



## bio-chem (Nov 16, 2005)

i think it is well documented that the treaty ending ww1 caused ww2 due to the fact germany was left in poverty and left no way out except for the inevatable ww2


----------



## GFR (Nov 16, 2005)

bio-chem said:
			
		

> i think it is well documented that the treaty ending ww1 caused ww2 due to the fact germany was left in poverty and left no way out except for the inevatable ww2


*This Nazi agrees with you!*


----------



## bio-chem (Nov 16, 2005)

your last post answers so many questions about you foreman


----------



## GFR (Nov 16, 2005)

True story


----------



## bio-chem (Nov 16, 2005)

i have no reason to doubt you


----------



## lnvanry (Nov 16, 2005)

in a sense foreman is kind of right w/ the arnold nazi thing....The Austrians are always portrayed like the victim in WWII (like in the sound of music).  Well they definitely weren't victims...they whole heartedly went along w/ the Nazi's....



Godspank....go back to community college


----------



## bio-chem (Nov 16, 2005)

lnvanry said:
			
		

> Godspank....go back to community college


WOW good burn


----------



## lnvanry (Nov 16, 2005)

bio-chem said:
			
		

> agreed. good post. we are a country of entrepreneurs and many non-college educated are making great money. look at bill gates as an extreme example. the guy is a college drop out.


He is definitely an excellent counterpoint to my statements, but he and the few other successful uneducated people are outliers (or celebs/atheletes)


----------



## lnvanry (Nov 16, 2005)

bio-chem said:
			
		

> WOW good burn


 

 not quite....


----------



## SuperFlex (Nov 16, 2005)

Flip a coin! His picture might even show...


----------



## bio-chem (Nov 16, 2005)

lnvanry said:
			
		

> He is definitely an excellent counterpoint to my statements, but he and the few other successful uneducated people are outliers (or celebs/atheletes)


agreed he is of course an exception to the rule, that is why i said extreme example. my point was to show for those who work hard and take the initiative with a great idea, its still possible to do well without a college degree


----------



## GFR (Nov 16, 2005)

bio-chem said:
			
		

> agreed he is of course an exception to the rule, that is why i said extreme example. my point was to show for those who work hard and take the initiative with a great idea, its still possible to do well without a college degree


My Grandfather was the smartest person I ever met.....0 college....yet he read the entire Harvard Classics......knew them better than I did and that was my major.....plus his knowledge of them was 50 years old....he educated himself better than most colleges would have........probably much like Bill Gates......very rare individuals.


----------



## BigDyl (Nov 16, 2005)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> My Grandfather was the smartest person I ever met.....0 college....yet he read the entire Harvard Classics......knew them better than I did and that was my major.....plus his knowledge of them was 50 years old....he educated himself better than most colleges would have........probably much like Bill Gates......very rare individuals.


----------



## lnvanry (Nov 16, 2005)

Back to the main question....I thought about and I think that I will only answer the presidents in my lifetime b/c I am not a history expert.

5.Jimmy Carter.  worst!
4.GHB
3.Bill Clinton
2. GWB  (he could surpass reagan or fall under clinton depending on the Iraq's outcome in the next 5-10 years)
1. Reagan    best!


----------



## GFR (Nov 16, 2005)

lnvanry said:
			
		

> Back to the main question....I thought about and I think that I will only answer the presidents in my lifetime b/c I am not a history expert.
> 
> 5.Jimmy Carter.  worst!
> 4.GHB
> ...


----------



## lnvanry (Nov 16, 2005)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

>


 
Lets see if I'm the only one who thinks this?


----------



## min0 lee (Nov 16, 2005)

lnvanry said:
			
		

> Back to the main question....I thought about and I think that I will only answer the presidents in my lifetime b/c I am not a history expert.
> 
> 5.Jimmy Carter.  worst!
> 4.GHB
> ...


Maybe in your lifetime but Reagan to me was not the best.


----------



## lnvanry (Nov 16, 2005)

MINO list those five IYO


----------



## BigDyl (Nov 16, 2005)

type worst president into google  Click the first link.    

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=worst+president&spell=1


----------



## min0 lee (Nov 16, 2005)

Both Roosevelts, Lincoln, Washington and Thomas Jefferson<--smart ass dude.


----------



## min0 lee (Nov 16, 2005)

> 2. GWB (he could surpass reagan or fall under clinton depending on the Iraq's outcome in the next 5-10 years)


In my lifetime he is the worst. I feel bad for the guy because he really seems like a nice guy but he's just  not president material.                I


----------



## gococksDJS (Nov 16, 2005)

bio-chem said:
			
		

> agreed he is of course an exception to the rule, that is why i said extreme example. my point was to show for those who work hard and take the initiative with a great idea, its still possible to do well without a college degree


 You also don't necessarily do well with a college degree. Three of my buddies graduated last year. One with a B.S. in chemistry, one with a whatever you get in criminal justice and the third had one of those majors that when he said it, everyone goes "huh?". All three of them are living in D.C. working for a marketing agency that has nothing to do with their degrees making shitty incomes but having a damn good time because it's a fun place to live when you're young.


----------



## min0 lee (Nov 16, 2005)

I have noticed a great deal of College grads lack some common sense. 
My spouse is a  psycho biology researcher obtained the job as an intern through College but it does not have a degree in that field but it's co-worker who does have a degree in that field knows less than it does.


----------



## lnvanry (Nov 16, 2005)

the degree just gives you a starting point....that's all.


w/ out your already a few laps behind though


----------



## GFR (Nov 16, 2005)

min0 lee said:
			
		

> I have noticed a great deal of College grads lack some common sense.
> My spouse is a  psycho biology researcher obtained the job as an intern through College but it does not have a degree in that field but it's co-worker who does have a degree in that field knows less than *it* does.


----------



## brogers (Nov 16, 2005)

FDR was the worst.

He is why we are so severly in debt, he began the unsustainable social welfare programs that have only ballooned to ridiculous sizes. It also turned this country from one of personal responsibility to one of reliance on the government. Just look at all the pathetic senior citizens who depend on medicare/social security. Suddenly the government needs to manage people's retirements for them.

Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter are right up there w/ him. I think Jimmy Carter is an embarassment to this country with the comments he's making these days, such as bashing America while visiting communist Cuba, etc.


I think Reagan deserves top 3, not top 10. The man was responsible for the fall of communism in Russia. A war with Russia would have been the worst in the history of the world, much less America. Not to mention he cut taxes and got our economy booming.

Dale Mabry, regarding Bush's tax cuts "for the rich" I'm quite sure it was a tax cut for everyone who pays taxes. The rich happen to pay the most taxes, so they will receive the bulk of the nominal cut, while receiving probably the same percentage cut.

If you're poor and paying 1,000 dollars of taxes, you'll only get a little back, but when you're paying 50,000 worth of taxes you're gonna get more back, it makes sense to me.

However, his presidency is largerly a disaster.


----------



## min0 lee (Nov 16, 2005)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

>


I say "it" because I prefer to keep my sex a secret. Your just jealous because I pay BigDyl more attention.


----------



## GFR (Nov 16, 2005)

min0 lee said:
			
		

> I say "it" because I prefer to keep my sex a secret. Your just jealous because I pay BigDyl more attention.


----------



## min0 lee (Nov 16, 2005)

brogers said:
			
		

> If you're poor and paying 1,000 dollars of taxes, you'll only get a little back, but when you're paying 50,000 worth of taxes you're gonna get more back, it make sense to me.


But don't  the middle and lower make up the majority....you must be very rich.


----------



## GFR (Nov 16, 2005)

brogers said:
			
		

> *FDR was the worst.*
> 
> He is why we are so severly in debt, he began the unsustainable social welfare programs that have only ballooned to ridiculous sizes. It also turned this country from one of personal responsibility to one of reliance on the government. Just look at all the pathetic senior citizens who depend on medicare/social security. Suddenly the government needs to manage people's retirements for them.
> 
> ...


----------



## min0 lee (Nov 16, 2005)

*Aren't you the pot calling the kettle black*



			
				ForemanRules said:
			
		

>


----------



## GFR (Nov 16, 2005)

min0 lee said:
			
		

>


----------



## min0 lee (Nov 16, 2005)

I need to shave?


----------



## min0 lee (Nov 16, 2005)

FDR served 3 terms by the way..but then again Bush served 2..


----------



## HANK-VISSER (Nov 17, 2005)

min0 lee said:
			
		

> FDR served 3 terms by the way..but then again Bush served 2..




here is a picture of a girl trying to lose weight the old way:


----------



## min0 lee (Nov 17, 2005)

The sky is above us and the earth below us.


----------



## Decker (Nov 17, 2005)

brogers said:
			
		

> FDR was the worst.
> 
> He is why we are so severly in debt, he began the unsustainable social welfare programs that have only ballooned to ridiculous sizes. It also turned this country from one of personal responsibility to one of reliance on the government. Just look at all the pathetic senior citizens who depend on medicare/social security. Suddenly the government needs to manage people's retirements for them.
> 
> ...


Actually FDR is the reason that the US came out of the Depression. He followed the Keynesian theory of priming the pump where the Fed expanded the money supply. Also, he headed off unemployment and destitution for the masses by implementing Govt. spending: CCC, TVA, SSA, which helped pull the country out of the economic doldrums created by the laissez-faire economics of the Republican administrations of the 1920s???Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover. 

Reagan, like his predecessors from the 1920s, practiced the holy trinity of low taxes, little regulation, and ineffectual anti-trust enforcement. It was Paul Volcker who is largely responsible for the economic expansion of the 80s and not Reagan???s tax cuts--they helped widen the wealth inequality gap of this country and created a deficit and debt from which we are still recovering. Reread Bonecrusher???s comments on the other unconstitutional aspects of the Reagan years.

As for GWB???s tax cuts, the wealthy got more out than they put in. In a progressive tax system, that is unfair. There are 2 major differences btn GWB and Reagan: 1. Reagan read his cue cards better and 2. Reagan actually listened to his policy people when they told him that his irresponsible tax cuts would bankrupt the gov., So Reagan acted and signed one of the largest tax increases in history. Bush has no compunction over economic sanity.

Oh yes, how is Reagan responsible for the fall of Communism?


----------



## lnvanry (Nov 17, 2005)

Decker said:
			
		

> Oh yes, how is Reagan responsible for the fall of Communism?


Just helping the fall of the Soviet Union...and its member states.


----------



## Decker (Nov 17, 2005)

lnvanry said:
			
		

> Just helping the fall of the Soviet Union...and its member states.


How?


----------



## ag-guys (Nov 17, 2005)

no comment but I did find this debate interesting 

AG
www.ag-guys.com


----------



## brogers (Nov 17, 2005)

Decker said:
			
		

> Actually FDR is the reason that the US came out of the Depression. He followed the Keynesian theory of priming the pump where the Fed expanded the money supply. Also, he headed off unemployment and destitution for the masses by implementing Govt. spending: CCC, TVA, SSA, which helped pull the country out of the economic doldrums created by the laissez-faire economics of the Republican administrations of the 1920s???Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover.
> 
> Reagan, like his predecessors from the 1920s, practiced the holy trinity of low taxes, little regulation, and ineffectual anti-trust enforcement. It was Paul Volcker who is largely responsible for the economic expansion of the 80s and not Reagan???s tax cuts--they helped widen the wealth inequality gap of this country and created a deficit and debt from which we are still recovering. Reread Bonecrusher???s comments on the other unconstitutional aspects of the Reagan years.
> 
> ...


While in increased government spending will boost the economy, like a tax cut, the difference is in what you get for the money spent.  Government spending = poor performance per dollar compared to the private sector.

Additionally, I hardly consider government redistribution of the wealth a valid tactic for pulling us out of a depression.  Much of the responsibility for bringing us out of the GD was the increased war time production, not FDR's programs (arguable).

Either way, I am less condemning his actions, and more condemning what he began.  People depend on the government for retirement, people depend on the government for medical care.  Apparently it's ok if you mismanage your money and can't afford to take of yourself because the government will steal from someone who makes more money and uses it responsibly and give it to you.   I am disgusted by how some people think they are "entitled" to the money of others via government redistribution.  Especially considering that the standard of living for the poor here is far better than most developing and developed countries national averages.

The economic problems of the 70's-80's were largely caused by over regulation (of oil in particular), Reagan deregulated, price dropped, economy boomed.  Because of the tax cuts, people had far more of the money they earn to spend themselves more efficiently, than to have it filter through bueracracies in the government.

Regarding GWB's tax cuts and the progressive income tax, you state the wealthy got out more than they put in...  you are mistaken severly.  The wealthy finance the nation.  I believe the top 2% of earners finance 50% of the national income.  The top 50% are responsible for over 95%.  If anyone is getting out more than they put it, by far, without question it is lower income people who use the social-welfare programs.  Because the poor pay so little in taxes they do not understand how ridiculously large and overgrown the government has become and thus the problem will never be remedied because all they want to hear is politicians (scumbags) promising them more money through social programs funded largely by other people's tax dollars .


----------



## The Monkey Man (Nov 17, 2005)

min0 lee said:
			
		

> I have noticed a great deal of College grads lack some common sense.
> My spouse is a psycho biology researcher obtained the job as an intern through College but it does not have a degree in that field but it's co-worker who does have a degree in that field knows less than it does.


Degrees teach you to approach things in a certain manner...

Some people think outside the box, most are not comfortable doing this...


----------



## lnvanry (Nov 17, 2005)

The Monkey Man said:
			
		

> Degrees teach you to approach things in a certain manner...
> 
> Some people think outside the box, most are not comfortable doing this...


 I probably will use less than half (maybe even less than that???) of the info I've learned here at ISU....maybe a little more from my aborad experiences...But the amount of organization, professionalism, and verbal skills that usually come with a degree is priceless.

 Not to mention it has turned into a prerequisite for salary employment...majority of the time


----------



## lnvanry (Nov 17, 2005)

Decker said:
			
		

> How?


 through diplomacy and litigation...w/ Gorbachev...Gorbie also admitted we won the war at Stanford Univerity 6/4/90 "let us not wrangle over who won it"...which is understandable.

 Conservatives say he won through hostile rhetoric and a MASSIVE arms build-up.

 Liberals claim it was the end of his second term where he began a gradual disarmment of our nuclear stock.

 Reagan also had a vice grip on oil, which the Soviets were lacking throughout the cold.  Russia has some of the world's largest oil reserves, but that wasn't flowing full force until after the Red State collapsed

 Timing has a lot to do w/ it...The fact that the Soviet Union collapsed during Reagans reign....I'm sure if Iraq becomes a booming success in 25 years that the current president on that future date will reap many benefits too.


----------



## god hand (Nov 17, 2005)

brogers said:
			
		

> FDR was the worst.
> 
> He is why we are so severly in debt, he began the unsustainable social welfare programs that have only ballooned to ridiculous sizes. It also turned this country from one of personal responsibility to one of reliance on the government. Just look at all the pathetic senior citizens who depend on medicare/social security. Suddenly the government needs to manage people's retirements for them.
> 
> ...



WHY HAVE'NT YOU BEEN BANNED YET! I CANT EVEN BEGAN TO IMAGINE HOW STUPID YOUR TRAINING PROGRAM IS!


----------



## The Monkey Man (Nov 17, 2005)

Holy Shit -


----------



## god hand (Nov 17, 2005)

The Monkey Man said:
			
		

> Holy Shit -


----------



## BigDyl (Nov 17, 2005)

@ nobody in particular...


----------



## bio-chem (Nov 17, 2005)

Decker said:
			
		

> Actually FDR is the reason that the US came out of the Depression. He followed the Keynesian theory of priming the pump where the Fed expanded the money supply. Also, he headed off unemployment and destitution for the masses by implementing Govt. spending: CCC, TVA, SSA, which helped pull the country out of the economic doldrums created by the laissez-faire economics of the Republican administrations of the 1920s???Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover.
> 
> Reagan, like his predecessors from the 1920s, practiced the holy trinity of low taxes, little regulation, and ineffectual anti-trust enforcement. It was Paul Volcker who is largely responsible for the economic expansion of the 80s and not Reagan???s tax cuts--they helped widen the wealth inequality gap of this country and created a deficit and debt from which we are still recovering. Reread Bonecrusher???s comments on the other unconstitutional aspects of the Reagan years.
> 
> ...


what? WW2 ended the depression, thats just how it is. nothing like a war time economy to put individuals in jobs.  everything FDR did was secondary. look at Germany before WW2, economy was worse than ours yet when hitler took over the economy boomed. tons of government spending took care of that.  the good thing about FDR is when he took over he tried to help. his predecessor wanted to let the economy fix itself with little govt intervention, this would have worked eventually, yet it would have taken more than a decade as this was a world wide depression.  

well before Reagan there was no indication whatsoever that the USSR would fall.  Reagan is generally credited with the fall of communism because of his govt spending. the USSR realised that their govt just couldnt keep up like ours could with the massive amounts of debt required in the arms race. our system was shown to be supperior in handleing govt debt. they in essence went bankrupt where on the otherhand we have not.  given this is a very simplistic explanation and to credit only one person with the fall of the USSR would be very difficult, as the flaw is with the system in general and not who is leading the opposition.  if i were to point the finger at someone i would have to say it was policies instituted by stalin that eventually led to the fall of the USSR.


----------



## bio-chem (Nov 17, 2005)

lnvanry said:
			
		

> I probably will use less than half (maybe even less than that???) of the info I've learned here at ISU....maybe a little more from my aborad experiences...But the amount of organization, professionalism, and verbal skills that usually come with a degree is priceless.
> 
> Not to mention it has turned into a prerequisite for salary employment...majority of the time


excellent post. i totally agree.  a friend of mine is an econ major and was telling me about a study that showed the most sucessful people are not necessarilly the smartest, but the ones who are best able to communicate with others in the workplace


----------



## BigDyl (Nov 17, 2005)

bio-chem said:
			
		

> our system was shown to be supperior in handleing govt debt.



When the adopted our system they went from a second world country to third world.


----------



## GFR (Nov 17, 2005)

god hand said:
			
		

> WHY HAVE'NT YOU BEEN BANNED YET! I CANT EVEN BEGAN TO IMAGINE HOW STUPID YOUR TRAINING PROGRAM IS!


----------



## bio-chem (Nov 17, 2005)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> When the adopted our system they went from a second world country to third world.


second world? so they were like canada?  go play in the other forums while the grown ups talk.


----------



## BigDyl (Nov 17, 2005)

bio-chem said:
			
		

> second world? so they were like canada?  go play in the other forums while the grown ups talk.




This is according to Noam Chomsky actually.  I'm sure you've read some of his works.


----------



## Decker (Nov 17, 2005)

brogers said:
			
		

> While in increased government spending will boost the economy, like a tax cut, the difference is in what you get for the money spent. Government spending = poor performance per dollar compared to the private sector.


That statement is based on an article of faith. I can provide you with a very long list of ventures that the government can do better than the private sector.



			
				brogers said:
			
		

> Additionally, I hardly consider government redistribution of the wealth a valid tactic for pulling us out of a depression. Much of the responsibility for bringing us out of the GD was the increased war time production, not FDR's programs (arguable)..


I hate to break it to you but check out the when the recovery actually began:

*Tax Federal GNP Unemp.*
*Year Receipts Spending Growth Rate*

-------------------------------------------------

1929 -- -- -- 3.2% < Hoover era, Great Depression begins

1930 4.2% 3.4% - 9.4% 8.7

1931 3.7 4.3 - 8.5 15.9

1932 2.9 7.0 -13.4 23.6

1933 3.5 8.1 - 2.1 24.9 < FDR, New Deal begins; *contraction ends March SEE right here!*

1934 4.9 10.8 + 7.7 21.7

1935 5.3 9.3 + 8.1 20.1

1936 5.1 10.6 +14.1 16.9

1937 6.2 8.7 + 5.0 14.3 < recession begins, May

1938 7.7 7.8 - 4.5 19.0 < recession ends, June

1939 7.2 10.4 + 7.9 17.2

1940 6.9 9.9 

1941 7.7 12.1 

1942 10.3 24.8 

1943 13.7 44.8 

1944 21.7 45.3 

1945 21.3 43.7





			
				brogers said:
			
		

> The economic problems of the 70's-80's were largely caused by over regulation (of oil in particular), Reagan deregulated, price dropped, economy boomed. Because of the tax cuts, people had far more of the money they earn to spend themselves more efficiently, than to have it filter through bueracracies in the government.


No the economic stagnation was not largely caused by overregulation. No one really knows why the malaise started and still continues today. . .although there are many theories of which ???over-regulation??? is not a front runner. The Japanese were hit harder than the US by the Arab Oil Embargo (read not regulation) and Japan???s economy did just fine. The Reagan tax cuts did stimulate the economy, but the vast majority of growth was due to Paul Volcker (Jimmy Carter???s appointee) and his handling of the money supply. You protest too much in crediting mere tax cuts.




			
				brogers said:
			
		

> Regarding GWB's tax cuts and the progressive income tax, you state the wealthy got out more than they put in... you are mistaken severly..


Oh really. Read this by Citizens for Tax Justice for an indepth analysis. The highlights:

· By 2010, the cumulative cost of Bush's tax cuts will be $2.29 trillion (or $3.25 trillion if they are made permanent as the GOP wants).

· Of that, $824 billion of that cost will have gone for tax cuts for the richest 1% of taxpayers-- over one-third of the total.

· In 2005, the average tax cut for the average taxpayer (those in the middle 20%) will be $563, while the richest 1% will receive an average tax cut of $41,264.

· As the tax cuts fully phase in, the benefits going to the wealthiest become larger and larger. By 2010, the richest 1% of taxpayers will be getting an $85,000 tax cut yearly, with that group getting 51.8% of all benefits of tax cut benefits that year.


----------



## GFR (Nov 17, 2005)

bio-chem said:
			
		

> second world? so they were like *c*anada  go play in the other forums while the grown ups talk.


There grownups here?????
I don't believe it!!! Next time one posts send me a PM and tell me where I can read it. 


*C*anada


----------



## GFR (Nov 17, 2005)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> This is according to Noam Chomsky actually.  I'm sure you've read some of his works.


*Understanding the Bush Doctrine
Noam Chomsky*
Information Clearing House, October 2, 2004
Perhaps the most threatening document of our time is the U.S. National Security Strategy of September 2002. Its implementation in Iraq has already taken countless lives and shaken the international system to the core.

In the fallout from the war on terror is a revived Cold War, with more nuclear players than ever, across even more dry-tinder landscapes around the world.

As Colin Powell explained, the NSS declared that Washington has a "sovereign right to use force to defend ourselves" from nations that possess weapons of mass destruction and cooperate with terrorists, the official pretexts for invading Iraq.

*The obvious reason for invading Iraq is still conspicuously evaded: establishing the first secure US military bases in a client state at the heart of the world???s major energy resources. *

As old pretexts collapsed, President Bush and his colleagues adaptively revised the doctrine of the NSS to enable them to resort to force even if a country does not have WMD or programmes to develop them. The "intent and ability" to do so is sufficient.

Just about every country has the ability, and intent is in the eye of the beholder. The official doctrine, then, is that anyone is subject to attack.

In September 2003, Bush assured Americans that "the world is safer today because our coalition ended an Iraqi regime that cultivated ties to terror while it built weapons of mass destruction." The president???s handlers know that lies can become Truth, if repeated insistently enough. 

The war in Iraq incited terror worldwide. In November 2003, Middle East expert Fawaz Gerges found it "simply unbelievable how the war has revived the appeal of a global jihadi Islam that was in real decline after 9-11." Iraq itself became a "terrorist haven" for the first time, and suffered its first suicide attacks since the 13th century CK assassins. 

Recruitment for Al Qaeda networks has risen. "Every use of force is another small victory for bin Laden," who "is winning," writes British journalist Jason Burke in Al-Qaida, his 2003 study of this loose array of radical Islamists, now mostly independent. 

For them, bin Laden is hardly more than a symbol. He may be even more dangerous after he is killed, becoming a martyr who will inspire others to join his cause. Burke sees the creation of "a whole new cadre of terrorists," enlisted in what they see as a "cosmic struggle between good and evil," a vision shared by bin Laden and Bush. 

The proper reaction to terrorism is two-pronged: directed at the terrorists themselves, and at the reservoir of potential support. The terrorists see themselves as a vanguard, seeking to mobilise others. Police work, an appropriate response, has been successful worldwide. More important is the broad constituency that the terrorists seek to reach, including many who hate and fear them but nevertheless see them as fighting for a just cause.

We can help the terrorist vanguard mobilise this reservoir of support, by violence. Or we can address the "myriad grievances," many legitimate, that are "the root causes of modern Islamic militancy," Burke writes. 

That basic effort can significantly reduce the threat of terror, and should be undertaken independently of this goal. 

Violent actions provoke reactions that risk catastrophe. US analysts estimate that Russian military expenditures have tripled during the Bush-Putin years, in large measure a predicted response to Bush administration bellicosity. On both sides, nuclear warheads remain on hair-trigger alert. The Russian control systems, however, have deteriorated. The dangers ratchet up with the threat and use of force.

As anticipated, US military plans have provoked a Chinese reaction as well. China has announced plans to "transform its military into a technology-driven force capable of projecting power globally by 2010," Boston Globe correspondent Jehangir Pocha reported last month, "replacing its land-based nuclear arsenal of about 20 1970s-era intercontinental ballistic missiles with 60 new multiple-warhead missiles capable of reaching the United States."

China???s actions are likely to touch off a ripple effect through India, Pakistan and beyond. Nuclear developments in Iran and North Korea, also in part at least a response to US threats, are exceedingly ominous. The unthinkable becomes thinkable.

In 2003, at the UN General Assembly, the United States voted alone against implementation of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and alone with its new ally India against steps toward the elimination of nuclear weapons. 

The United States also voted alone against "observance of environmental norms" in disarmament and arms control agreements, and alone with Israel and Micronesia against steps to prevent nuclear proliferation in the Middle East -- the pretext for invading Iraq. Presidents commonly have "doctrines," but Bush II is the first to have "visions" as well, possibly because his handlers recall the criticism of his father as lacking "the vision thing." 

The most exalted of these, conjured up after all pretexts for invasion of Iraq had to be abandoned, was the vision of bringing democracy to Iraq and the Middle East. By November 2003, this vision was taken to be the real motive for the war.

The evidence for faith in the vision consists of little more than declarations of virtuous intent. To take the declarations seriously, we would have to assume that our leaders are accomplished liars: While mobilising their countries for war, they were declaring that the reasons were entirely different. Mere sanity dictates scepticism about what they produce to replace pretexts that have collapsed.

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20041002.htm


----------



## Decker (Nov 17, 2005)

lnvanry said:
			
		

> through diplomacy and litigation...w/ Gorbachev...Gorbie also admitted we won the war at Stanford Univerity 6/4/90 "let us not wrangle over who won it"...which is understandable.
> 
> Conservatives say he won through hostile rhetoric and a MASSIVE arms build-up.
> 
> ...


It's interesting. I viewed the collapse of the SU's economic/military forays into foreign lands as a result of systemic economic collapse beginning in Truman's day and culminating in Reagan's. I do not think that Reagan was any more or less instrumental in the Cold War than any of his predecessors...he merely continued the policies started decades earlier.


----------



## min0 lee (Nov 17, 2005)

ag-guys said:
			
		

> no comment but I did find this debate interesting
> 
> AG
> www.ag-guys.com


That's what makes IM so special.


----------



## brogers (Nov 17, 2005)

Of that, $824 billion of that cost will have gone for tax cuts for the richest 1% of taxpayers-- over one-third of the total


The top-earning 1% of US taxpayers pay one third of all federal individual income taxes collected.
 
The top-earning 1% of taxpayers (1.215 million tax returns) earned 17.4% of the income.

The top-earning 1% of taxpayers (1.215 million tax returns) paid almost double their share of taxes in relation to income.

Do the math.  Or read the final statement.

They pay one third, they get one third of the cuts, simple, basic math.  Even a 2nd grader can understand it (but liberals can't).


----------



## brogers (Nov 17, 2005)

Decker, regardless of the fact that I disagree, at least you respond with information and attempt to make valid arguments, far better than the couple of morons who use 30 copies of the same smilie in their posts because they really have nothing to say.


----------



## GFR (Nov 17, 2005)

brogers said:
			
		

> Of that, $824 billion of that cost will have gone for tax cuts for the richest 1% of taxpayers-- over one-third of the total
> 
> 
> The top-earning 1% of US taxpayers pay one third of all federal individual income taxes collected.
> ...


* The wealthiest 1 percent of households owns roughly 33.4%  of the nation's net worth*, the top 10% of households owns over 71%, and the bottom 40% of households owns less than 1%.

http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/faculty/hodgson/Courses/so11/stratification/income&wealth.htm


----------



## GFR (Nov 17, 2005)

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/America/Wealth_Divide.html

Wolff: The most common measure used, and the most understandable is: what share of total wealth \ is owned by the richest households, typically the top 1 percent. In the United States, in the last survey year, 1998, *the richest 1 percent of households owned 38 percent of all wealth.*


----------



## GFR (Nov 17, 2005)

Do the math


----------



## GFR (Nov 17, 2005)

In terms of financial wealth, the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 39.7%.
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html


----------



## gococksDJS (Nov 17, 2005)

brogers said:
			
		

> The top-earning 1% of taxpayers (1.215 million tax returns) paid almost double their share of taxes in relation to income.
> 
> Do the math. Or read the final statement.
> 
> They pay one third, they get one third of the cuts, simple, basic math. Even a 2nd grader can understand it (but liberals can't).


 maybe im reading your statement wrong, but are you saying that paying more in taxes is an advantage?


----------



## BoneCrusher (Nov 17, 2005)

"The rich pay more of their gross so they should get the tax breaks" bs is too weak to still be beating on.  When all the evasive maneuvers are combined the wealthy pay less than their share ... there is no way to hide that anymore.  The corporate welfare that has been socialised into our fiscal policies has reached an outrageously dangerous level.  How long can we subsidise companies like Enron at BushCo's behest?


----------



## lnvanry (Nov 17, 2005)

giving the people back money through tax breaks is the primary theory on how to get the economy to bounce back...even if it means the rich get back a larger amount (even thoug directly proportionally to what was put in).


Giving the rich back more money stimulates the economy more b/c the money is "freed" up and can be used.  It is invested...instead of consumed.  They way to bring back economies (according to the orthodox methods of US Economics) is to lower taxes and the let value of your curreny depreciate to the rest of the world's currencies.  This is practice by GWB....another famous well liked president followed this too...he was a harvard econ grad.....can you guess???

JFK...he didn't get time to though 

THis method of dropping taxes and causing inlfuxes of money back to the rich...and everyone who usually doesn't invest and only consumes.....is the backbone of ivy league ecnonomics.....Why do think the US takes the Nobel Prize in Econ year after year after year.....We obsess over this more than any other country....That's why we are the most stable and the IMF and World Bank uses our money for loans to foreign nation states...go USA


----------



## GFR (Nov 17, 2005)

lnvanry said:
			
		

> giving the people back money through tax breaks is the primary theory on how to get the economy to bounce back...even if it means the rich get back a larger amount (even thoug directly proportionally to what was put in).
> 
> 
> *Giving the rich back more money stimulates the economy more b/c the money is "freed" up and can be used.*  It is invested...instead of consumed.  They way to bring back economies (according to the orthodox methods of US Economics) is to lower taxes and the let value of your curreny depreciate to the rest of the world's currencies.  This is practice by GWB....another famous well liked president followed this too...he was a harvard econ grad.....can you guess???
> ...


----------



## lnvanry (Nov 17, 2005)

laugh if you will foreman.....You probably highlighted my weakest sentence 



laugh it up fucker


----------



## GFR (Nov 17, 2005)

lnvanry said:
			
		

> laugh if you will foreman.....You probably highlighted my weakest sentence
> 
> 
> 
> laugh it up fucker


----------



## Dale Mabry (Nov 17, 2005)

That sentence does sound like a retard wrote it.

Although, the poor will spend it on drugs that won't be taxed.  The rich will spend it on something taxable, but just evade the taxes anyway.


----------



## GFR (Nov 17, 2005)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> That sentence does sound like a retard wrote it.
> 
> *Although, the poor will spend it on drugs* that won't be taxed.  The rich will spend it on something taxable, but just evade the taxes anyway.


----------



## lnvanry (Nov 17, 2005)

It doesn't matter if its on drugs or perishable items....either way it doesn't compound down the value chain


----------



## The Monkey Man (Nov 17, 2005)

I'll laugh too - 

All that theory is great, but why do I have a feeling
you can't run a nation as large as the US without 
having some lower and middle income employment available


----------



## lnvanry (Nov 17, 2005)

The Monkey Man said:
			
		

> *I'll laugh too - *
> 
> All that theory is great, but why do I have a feeling
> you can't run a nation as large as the US without
> having some lower and middle income employment available


 
 

Its not really a theory though....its turned into a common practice by nation states who use a floating currency system.


----------



## GFR (Nov 17, 2005)

lnvanry said:
			
		

> *Its not really a theory* though....its turned into a common practice by nation states who use a floating currency system.


----------



## min0 lee (Nov 17, 2005)

The Monkey Man said:
			
		

> I'll laugh too -
> 
> All that theory is great, but why do I have a feeling
> you can't run a nation as large as the US without
> having some lower and middle income employment available


----------



## The Monkey Man (Nov 17, 2005)

I see it as the removal of the working class...

creating a rich educated class, and a stupid welfare sucking empty voting base

Not to mention the complete loss of any serious industrial manufacturing capabilty
(Which saved the planet during WWII)


----------



## GFR (Nov 17, 2005)

The Monkey Man said:
			
		

> I see it as the removal of the working class...
> 
> *creating a rich educated class, and a stupid welfare sucking empty voting base*
> 
> ...


That is the plan


----------



## lnvanry (Nov 17, 2005)

I though we were talking about the tax thing...my mistake.


----------



## BigDyl (Nov 17, 2005)

Foreman's going to laugh in 3...2...1...


----------



## GFR (Nov 17, 2005)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> Foreman's going to laugh in 3...2...1...


----------



## SuperFlex (Nov 17, 2005)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> Foreman's going to laugh in 3...2...1...


That's his way of trying to look like he's not wrong...


----------



## BigDyl (Nov 17, 2005)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

>



Laugh on cue, Bitch!


----------



## GFR (Nov 17, 2005)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> Laugh on cue, Bitch!


Sorry I was arguing with a lazy child on another thread.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Nov 17, 2005)

lnvanry said:
			
		

> giving the people back money through tax breaks is the primary theory on how to get the economy to bounce back...even if it means the rich get back a larger amount (even thoug directly proportionally to what was put in).



I agree to a degree, but the gap in wealth and the disparities in ownership are widening significantly.  

Those with the wealth, attain power, and control.

Wealth and power are entertwined.  Moreso today, than in the days of Rockefeller. 



> Giving the rich back more money stimulates the economy more b/c the money is "freed" up and can be used.  It is invested...instead of consumed.  They way to bring back economies (according to the orthodox methods of US Economics) is to lower taxes and the let value of your curreny depreciate to the rest of the world's currencies.  This is practice by GWB....another famous well liked president followed this too...he was a harvard econ grad.....can you guess???
> 
> *JFK*...he didn't get time to though.



Very true: JFK was a Supply-Sider.  

GWB, however, is a spender, and firm believer that the national (federal) government should spend and even take more.  You can't play it both ways.  If you spend, you will eventually have to pay for it, when deficits become to massive.


----------



## Decker (Nov 18, 2005)

BoneCrusher said:
			
		

> "The rich pay more of their gross so they should get the tax breaks" bs is too weak to still be beating on. When all the evasive maneuvers are combined the wealthy pay less than their share ... there is no way to hide that anymore. The corporate welfare that has been socialised into our fiscal policies has reached an outrageously dangerous level. How long can we subsidise companies like Enron at BushCo's behest?


There's no doubt that the rich do pay more taxes, but that's b/c 1. they earn more and 2. We have a progressive income tax system. I know your thinking, 'no shit', but here's the capper to the tax fairness question:
"The federal Bureau of Labor Statistics, in its annual consumer expenditure survey, looked at the burden of local and state taxes as well as federal levies...For 2001 the government found that *all taxes at all levels of government consume 19 percent of the incomes of the best-off fifth of Americans,* those individuals and families whose average income was $116,666 that year. Down at the bottom *the poorest fifth, whose average income was $7,946, paid 18 percent."*

So in effect, our entire tax system is flat. Tax cuts have a trickledown effect...a negative effect. As you pointed out, when the corporate welfare, dividends, and capital gains (remember the very rich make most of their money through capital gains and not earned income) are factored in, Bush's tax-cut is even more unfair than it appears.


----------



## bigss75 (Nov 30, 2005)

buchanan is by for the worst president. he allowwed the the secession of the lower seven states which led to the civil war.


----------



## lnvanry (Nov 30, 2005)

http://www.ironmagazineforums.com/showpost.php?p=1172263&postcount=29

Thats what this great survey in the WSJ said too...


----------



## min0 lee (Nov 30, 2005)

bigss75 said:
			
		

> buchanan is by for the worst president. he allowwed the the secession of the lower seven states which led to the civil war.


www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents


> *James Buchanan *
> 
> Tall, stately, stiffly formal in the high stock he wore around his jowls, James Buchanan was the only President who never married.
> 
> ...


----------



## SuperFlex (Nov 30, 2005)

Thomas Jefferson...


----------



## min0 lee (Nov 30, 2005)

SuperFlex said:
			
		

> Thomas Jefferson...


----------



## gococksDJS (Nov 30, 2005)

bigss75 said:
			
		

> buchanan is by for the worst president. he allowwed the the secession of the lower seven states which led to the civil war.


 Brush up on your history my man. At the time, unilateral secession was not considered unconstitutional. Do you know why South Carolina seceded from the Union? If you bring up the slavery conflict, you're wrong.


----------



## bigss75 (Nov 30, 2005)

Well the 1860 Democratic Convention  in Charleston was the what caused the succession because  Douglas from the northern refused to support the the federal slave code to replace the freeport doctrine. As a result southern democrats then walked out of  the convention and guaranteed Lincoln's win since the democrats had to split votes for three different parties Northern Democrats, Southern Democrats, and the Constitutional Union. South Carolina after the hearing the of Lincoln's win South Carolina unratified the constitution. Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas right after them. The rest of the confederacy seceded after Sumter.

Buchanan also started it by trying to pass the LeCompton Constitution in Kansas even though the southerns didn't win Kansas it was the North. Lucky Congress didn't allow it and two southern governors both investigated and called fraud. Also you think a guy like Andrew Jackson or Abraham Lincoln would have put up with South Carolina succeeding? No, they would of sent a tons of troops there and squashed it quick.


----------



## gococksDJS (Nov 30, 2005)

bigss75 said:
			
		

> Well the 1860 Democratic Convention in Charleston was the what caused the succession because Douglas from the northern refused to support the the federal slave code to replace the freeport doctrine. As a result southern democrats then walked out of the convention and guaranteed Lincoln's win since the democrats had to split votes for three different parties Northern Democrats, Southern Democrats, and the Constitutional Union. South Carolina after the hearing the of Lincoln's win South Carolina unratified the constitution. Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas right after them. The rest of the confederacy seceded after Sumter.
> 
> Buchanan also started it by trying to pass the LeCompton Constitution in Kansas even though the southerns didn't win Kansas it was the North. Lucky Congress didn't allow it and two southern governors both investigated and called fraud. Also you think a guy like Andrew Jackson or Abraham Lincoln would have put up with South Carolina succeeding? No, they would of sent a tons of troops there and squashed it quick.


 I don't feel like reiterating the history of the Civil War right now so I'll provide a brief summary, but if you're still lost, ill explain it in full.
a.) South Carolina seceded after hearing that Lincoln won the election and did not unratify the Constitution, but exercised their rights laid out in the Doctrine of States Rights, which is the Tenth amendment of the Constitution.
b.) Lincoln was a Republican who won the support of many ex-Whigs and Northern ex-democrats.
c.) Kansas did not become a state until 1861, after the secession of the Confederate States.
d.) The origins of the conflict between the North and South are rooted in the "Tariff of Abominations", not slavery.
e.) The six original Confederate States were South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia and Louisiana. Texas followed a month later. Fort Sumpter occured a month after Texas seceded.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Nov 30, 2005)

gococksDJS said:
			
		

> b.) Lincoln was a Republican who won the support of many ex-Whigs and Northern ex-democrats.




Were members of the Whig party called Whiggers back then?


----------



## gococksDJS (Nov 30, 2005)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> Were members of the Whig party called Whiggers back then?


 So I guess you could say the Whiggers wanted to free the enslaved Ni**ers?


----------



## bigss75 (Nov 30, 2005)

gococksDJS said:
			
		

> I don't feel like reiterating the history of the Civil War right now so I'll provide a brief summary, but if you're still lost, ill explain it in full.
> 
> a.) South Carolina seceded after hearing that Lincoln won the election and did not unratify the Constitution, but exercised their rights laid out in the Doctrine of States Rights, which is the Tenth amendment of the Constitution.
> 
> ...


!


----------



## Dale Mabry (Nov 30, 2005)

gococksDJS said:
			
		

> So I guess you could say the Whiggers wanted to free the enslaved Ni**ers?



Interesting how you spell the white term, but put asterisks in the black term...racist.


----------



## gococksDJS (Nov 30, 2005)

bigss75 said:
			
		

> !


I'm not sure how I can make this more clear. The conflict that led to the forming of the Confederate States as well as the Civil War DID NOT ORIGINATE WITH SLAVERY. Saying slavery caused the Civil War is just like saying Confederate Troops firing on Union at Ft. Sumter troops started the conflict. These two incidents added to the already high tension between the North and South, but the original conflict that led to the shift in power in the Senate favoring the north and then the Civil War was not slavery at all. When Lincoln was elected, he did not agree with abolishing slavery due to the economic impact, but rather he favored the ending of slave expansion into the newer states.


----------



## gococksDJS (Nov 30, 2005)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> Interesting how you spell the white term, but put asterisks in the black term...racist.


 I hate whitey.


----------



## SuperFlex (Nov 30, 2005)

min0 lee said:
			
		

>


  Ahhhh... That feels great my black slave...


----------



## bigss75 (Dec 1, 2005)

gococksDJS said:
			
		

> I'm not sure how I can make this more clear. The conflict that led to the forming of the Confederate States as well as the Civil War DID NOT ORIGINATE WITH SLAVERY. Saying slavery caused the Civil War is just like saying Confederate Troops firing on Union at Ft. Sumter troops started the conflict. These two incidents added to the already high tension between the North and South, but the original conflict that led to the shift in power in the Senate favoring the north and then the Civil War was not slavery at all. When Lincoln was elected, he did not agree with abolishing slavery due to the economic impact, but rather he favored the ending of slave expansion into the newer states.



The Civil War was a result of slavery because the South was paranoid that they were going to lose there 3.5 -4 million slaves. The loss of just a fraction of that workforce would cost more then any protective tariff. The north said nothing of the sort but the south believed it was going to happen. 

The Senate was balanced until Kansas would be let in but the Supreme Court strongly in support of the south. The house was for the north simply because there is more people there.

I guess I dont see your point of view.


----------



## gococksDJS (Dec 1, 2005)

bigss75 said:
			
		

> The Civil War was a result of slavery because the South was paranoid that they were going to lose there 3.5 -4 million slaves. The loss of just a fraction of that workforce would cost more then any protective tariff. The north said nothing of the sort but the south believed it was going to happen.
> 
> The Senate was balanced until Kansas would be let in but the Supreme Court strongly in support of the south. The house was for the north simply because there is more people there.
> 
> I guess I dont see your point of view.


 Please read about the Civil War. When Abraham Lincoln was elected, he did not agree with the abolition of slavery, he wanted to stop slavery expansion. That means that at the start of the Civil War, there was no threat of the south losing "3.5-4 million slaves" as you put it. 

The big problem was the shift congressional power in favor of the north due to the increase of immigration and the Tariff of Abominations had caused a boom in the Northern Economy while choking the Southern Economy. The increase in population size of the North gave them more congressional power, and thus more influence over Presidential elections. Because of this, the South badly needed new territories to be admitted as slave states so they could increase their numbers and thus balance out the congressional influence between the North and South, but the newly formed Republican Party opposed slavery expansion (NOT SLAVERY ABOLITION), meaning no new territories would be admitted as slave states, but only as free states. This would cause an even greater loss in the South's already depleted congressional influence, so they did not want a Republican to take office. 

Lincoln was then elected, and he was a Republican, so fearing the collapse of the Southern economy, due to its basis being cotton and thus slave labor, South Carolina seceded followed by the other states.

I'm not sure how I can make this more clear for you, but slavery was not the origin of the conflict between the North and South. If you actually read about the Civil War (which I doubt you have) you will see that when he took office, Lincoln stated that the government did not have the power to abolish slavery in states where it already existed, only the power to prevent the admission of new slave states into the Union.

So your opening comment is false, because if abolishing slavery was the motive of the Civil War, like you claim, why did Lincoln wait a year and a half after the war started to issue the Emancipation Proclamation? And why was it issued in two parts six months apart from each other?


----------



## bigss75 (Dec 1, 2005)

gococksDJS said:
			
		

> P
> The big problem was the shift congressional power in favor of the north due to the increase of immigration and the Tariff of Abominations had caused a boom in the Northern Economy while choking the Southern Economy.*Their economy was hardly  choking* The increase in population size of the North gave them more congressional power, and thus more influence over Presidential elections. Because of this, the South badly needed new territories to be admitted as slave states so they could increase their numbers and thus balance out the congressional influence between the North and South, but the newly formed Republican Party opposed slavery expansion (NOT SLAVERY ABOLITION), meaning no new territories would be admitted as slave states, but only as free states.*I never said that*  This would cause an even greater loss in the South's already depleted
> congressional influence, so they did not want a Republican to take office. *Then why did the democrats split up in the 1860 convention they had it won as long as they stood together, Why did they split up the federal  slave code.*
> I'm not sure how I can make this more clear for you, but slavery was not the origin of the conflict between the North and South. If you actually read about the Civil War (which I doubt you have)*Actually I have*  you will see that when he took office, Lincoln stated that the government did not have the power to abolish slavery in states where it already existed, only the power to prevent the admission of new slave states into the Union.*Did I ever say that Lincoln wanted to abolish slavery after he was elected?*



Whats your knowledge about the Civil War?


----------



## bigss75 (Dec 1, 2005)

[Copied by Justin Sanders from J.A. May & J.R. Faunt, South Carolina Secedes (U. of S. Car. Pr, 1960), pp. 76-81.]

Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union

The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue.

And now the State of South Carolina having resumed her separate and equal place among nations, deems it due to herself, to the remaining United States of America, and to the nations of the world, that she should declare the immediate causes which have led to this act.

In the year 1765, that portion of the British Empire embracing Great Britain, undertook to make laws for the government of that portion composed of the thirteen American Colonies. A struggle for the right of self-government ensued, which resulted, on the 4th of July, 1776, in a Declaration, by the Colonies, "that they are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; and that, as free and independent States, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do."

They further solemnly declared that whenever any "form of government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government." Deeming the Government of Great Britain to have become destructive of these ends, they declared that the Colonies "are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved."

In pursuance of this Declaration of Independence, each of the thirteen States proceeded to exercise its separate sovereignty; adopted for itself a Constitution, and appointed officers for the administration of government in all its departments-- Legislative, Executive and Judicial. For purposes of defense, they united their arms and their counsels; and, in 1778, they entered into a League known as the Articles of Confederation, whereby they agreed to entrust the administration of their external relations to a common agent, known as the Congress of the United States, expressly declaring, in the first Article "that each State retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right which is not, by this Confederation, expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled."

Under this Confederation the war of the Revolution was carried on, and on the 3rd of September, 1783, the contest ended, and a definite Treaty was signed by Great Britain, in which she acknowledged the independence of the Colonies in the following terms: "ARTICLE 1-- His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz: New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that he treats with them as such; and for himself, his heirs and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof."

Thus were established the two great principles asserted by the Colonies, namely: the right of a State to govern itself; and the right of a people to abolish a Government when it becomes destructive of the ends for which it was instituted. And concurrent with the establishment of these principles, was the fact, that each Colony became and was recognized by the mother Country a FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATE.

In 1787, Deputies were appointed by the States to revise the Articles of Confederation, and on 17th September, 1787, these Deputies recommended for the adoption of the States, the Articles of Union, known as the Constitution of the United States.

The parties to whom this Constitution was submitted, were the several sovereign States; they were to agree or disagree, and when nine of them agreed the compact was to take effect among those concurring; and the General Government, as the common agent, was then invested with their authority.

If only nine of the thirteen States had concurred, the other four would have remained as they then were-- separate, sovereign States, independent of any of the provisions of the Constitution. In fact, two of the States did not accede to the Constitution until long after it had gone into operation among the other eleven; and during that interval, they each exercised the functions of an independent nation.

By this Constitution, certain duties were imposed upon the several States, and the exercise of certain of their powers was restrained, which necessarily implied their continued existence as sovereign States. But to remove all doubt, an amendment was added, which declared that 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. On the 23d May , 1788, South Carolina, by a Convention of her People, passed an Ordinance assenting to this Constitution, and afterwards altered her own Constitution, to conform herself to the obligations she had undertaken.

Thus was established, by compact between the States, a Government with definite objects and powers, limited to the express words of the grant. This limitation left the whole remaining mass of power subject to the clause reserving it to the States or to the people, and rendered unnecessary any specification of reserved rights.

We hold that the Government thus established is subject to the two great principles asserted in the Declaration of Independence; and we hold further, that the mode of its formation subjects it to a third fundamental principle, namely: the law of compact. We maintain that in every compact between two or more parties, the obligation is mutual; that the failure of one of the contracting parties to perform a material part of the agreement, entirely releases the obligation of the other; and that where no arbiter is provided, each party is remitted to his own judgment to determine the fact of failure, with all its consequences.

In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.
*
The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."
*
This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.

The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.
*
The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.
*
The ends for which the Constitution was framed are declared by itself to be "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."
*
These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.*

*We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.*

For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.

This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.

On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.

The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy.

Sectional interest and animosity will deepen the irritation, and all hope of remedy is rendered vain, by the fact that public opinion at the North has invested a great political error with the sanction of more erroneous religious belief.

We, therefore, the People of South Carolina, by our delegates in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared that the Union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of North America, is dissolved, and that the State of South Carolina has resumed her position among the nations of the world, as a separate and independent State; with full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do.

Adopted December 24, 1860


----------



## bio-chem (Dec 1, 2005)

anyone who really believes slavery didnt cause the contention between north and south that led to civil war in the US is blinding themselves to the obvious facts.  (or grew up in the south, and was therefore taught this in high school)


----------



## BigDyl (Dec 1, 2005)

bio-chem said:
			
		

> anyone who really believes slavery didnt cause the contention between north and south that led to civil war in the US is blinding themselves to the obvious facts.  (or grew up in the south, and was therefore taught this in high school)




So whose the worst american president ever?


----------



## bio-chem (Dec 1, 2005)

who was the guy who died after like a month in office? yea he sucked


----------



## lnvanry (Dec 1, 2005)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> So whose the worst american president ever?


 Buchanan or Carter IMO


----------



## gococksDJS (Dec 1, 2005)

bio-chem said:
			
		

> anyone who really believes slavery didnt cause the contention between north and south that led to civil war in the US is blinding themselves to the obvious facts. (or grew up in the south, and was therefore taught this in high school)


 I have never said that slavery didn't add to the contention between the North and South, but the original conflict behind the Civil War did not arise from slavery, and that is a fact, it began with the Tariff of Abominations. If the point of the Civil War was to abolish slavery, why did Lincoln wait so long to issue the Emancipaton Proclamation? Why did he let thousands of soldiers die before rectifying the supposed "reason for the war"?


----------



## god hand (Dec 1, 2005)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> So whose the worst american president ever?


Let me answer the questions around here bitch!


----------



## silencer (Dec 1, 2005)

I don't think I have the adequate knowledge to point out who I think is the worst US President. But I will make a bold statement. *Bush is a shit President*. Plenty of posts previously have links to websites which indicate this. FFS he is about as articulate as a 12 year old retarded boy ? KEFE and Bush, probably at the same mental level .


----------



## bigss75 (Dec 1, 2005)

silencer said:
			
		

> I don't think I have the adequate knowledge to point out who I think is the worst US President. But I will make a bold statement. *Bush is a shit President*. Plenty of posts previously have links to websites which indicate this. FFS he is about as articulate as a 12 year old retarded boy ? KEFE and Bush, probably at the same mental level .



UK=Vote doesnt matter


----------



## bio-chem (Dec 1, 2005)

gococksDJS said:
			
		

> I have never said that slavery didn't add to the contention between the North and South, but the original conflict behind the Civil War did not arise from slavery, and that is a fact, it began with the Tariff of Abominations. If the point of the Civil War was to abolish slavery, why did Lincoln wait so long to issue the Emancipaton Proclamation? Why did he let thousands of soldiers die before rectifying the supposed "reason for the war"?


so if slavery was not the economic staple of the south? do you think the civil war would still have happened?


----------



## silencer (Dec 1, 2005)

I wasn't aware of the highly specific voting requirements.


----------



## BigDyl (Dec 1, 2005)

god hand said:
			
		

> Let me answer the questions around here bitch!



*BANNED! X 1000*


----------



## silencer (Dec 1, 2005)

bio-chem said:
			
		

> *so if slavery was not the economic staple of the south*? do you think the civil war would still have happened?



Depends on the alternative economic staple


----------



## Dale Mabry (Dec 1, 2005)

silencer said:
			
		

> Depends on the alternative economic staple



Juji Fruits.


----------



## bio-chem (Dec 1, 2005)

slavery was the difference between north and south. it was slave states vs non-slave states that was the dividing line and decisive factor


----------



## gococksDJS (Dec 1, 2005)

bio-chem said:
			
		

> so if slavery was not the economic staple of the south? do you think the civil war would still have happened?


Slavery was not the economic staple, cotton was. But I see what you are saying because the farming of cotton did rely upon slave labor. I don't think you can accurately say whether or not the Civil War would have happened if there was no slavery, because we don't know if the South's economy could have even been built on farming if there was no slave labor, but my original statement (which was in response to bigss' statement about the south being worried about losing 3.5 million slaves) was that the conflict between the North and South was not rooted in slavery. Slavery certainly played a pivotal role in the tension between the two, but the abolition of slavery was not a threat at the start of the Civil War. The South was worried about their declining power in Congress due to the boost of immigration to the North which was economically thriving due to the Tariff of Abominations. The Tariff of Abominations posed a great threat the future of the Souths Economy.


The Southern states could not compete with the North in terms of population numbers due to immigration because of the North's booming economy as well as the South's economy being based on farming(limited living space), so the only way they could shift the Congressional power balance in their favor would be to admit new Slave states into the Union, which the newly formed Republican Party opposed. Then Lincoln won the Presidential election, basically cutting off all means of the South increasing their Congressional influence. Lincoln winning the election directly led to South Carolina seceding from the Union.

What I have been trying to say since my first post is that the Civil War did not start in an attempt to end slavery. Slavery expansion was an argumentative point between the North and South, but not the abolition of slavery, so the South was not worried about "losing 3.5-4 million slaves" which is exactly what bigss said and why I began posting in this thread.


----------



## bio-chem (Dec 2, 2005)

ok i can accept that. the civil war did not start with an attempt to end slavery. yet with the balance of power shifting to the north the south read the "writing on the wall" in the years leading up to the civil war a one to one policy was adopted where one slave state and one non-slave state were added together to keep a status quo. with the shift of power to one side the other side would obviously have seen the future and realized what was coming next. with a mojority the north could have abolished slavery. with no defense against this they left the union in essence to preserve slavery.


----------



## gococksDJS (Dec 2, 2005)

bio-chem said:
			
		

> ok i can accept that. the civil war did not start with an attempt to end slavery. yet with the balance of power shifting to the north the south read the "writing on the wall" in the years leading up to the civil war a one to one policy was adopted where one slave state and one non-slave state were added together to keep a status quo. with the shift of power to one side the other side would obviously have seen the future and realized what was coming next. with a mojority the north could have abolished slavery. with no defense against this they left the union in essence to preserve slavery.


 And I agree with you.


----------



## min0 lee (Nov 15, 2006)

*Worst president in US history?*

Source: _Independent (UK)_ (11-12-06)



> The Republican performance in this week's midterm elections has led many commentators to describe Bush as the most disastrous leader in US history. But what about the competition? We asked the experts to cast their votes:
> 
> George W Bush: chosen by Owen Dudley Edwards
> 
> ...


----------



## bio-chem (Nov 15, 2006)

In years to come i feel Bush wont be as hated as he is now. not many presidents have had to deal with the things this president has.  i do feel his lasting legacy will be his appointments in the supreme court however.  

much like how john adams placed john marshall as head of the supreme court.  effectively cementing the impact of the federalists upon this nations history.  

having said that i do not feel however bush is in any way close to john adams as a president


----------



## min0 lee (Nov 15, 2006)

bio-chem said:


> In years to come i feel Bush wont be as hated as he is now. not many presidents have had to deal with the things this president has. i do feel his lasting legacy will be his appointments in the supreme court however.
> 
> much like how john adams placed john marshall as head of the supreme court. effectively cementing the impact of the federalists upon this nations history.
> 
> having said that i do not feel however bush is in any way close to john adams as a president


 
I see you have been reading his history.


----------



## bio-chem (Nov 15, 2006)

min0 lee said:


> I see you have been reading his history.



just finished JOHN ADAMS by david mccullough and am now reading WHAT KIND OF NATION by james f simon about the supreme court cases of john marshal during the thomas jefferson administration. 

damn early US history kicks so much ass


----------



## min0 lee (Nov 15, 2006)

bio-chem said:


> just finished JOHN ADAMS by david mccullough and am now reading WHAT KIND OF NATION by james f simon about the supreme court cases of john marshal during the thomas jefferson administration.
> 
> damn early US history kicks so much ass


Where did all those great minds go?


----------



## bio-chem (Nov 15, 2006)

min0 lee said:


> Where did all those great minds go?



to heaven.

our great minds today are smart enough not to go into politics. they spend their time working for no money in non-profit organizations.  the thing back then is the good men were chosen to their positions. washington and adams never campained or asked for a position. they were put there and accepted the call of their countrymen.  alas, for roman virtue is dead me thinks


----------



## min0 lee (Nov 15, 2006)

bio-chem said:


> to heaven.
> 
> our great minds today are smart enough not to go into politics. they spend their time working for no money in non-profit organizations. the thing back then is the good men were chosen to their positions. washington and adams never campained or asked for a position. they were put there and accepted the call of their countrymen. alas, for roman virtue is dead me thinks


Well said.


----------



## bio-chem (Nov 15, 2006)

min0 lee said:


> Well said.



i wish i was wrong


----------



## min0 lee (Nov 15, 2006)

bio-chem said:


> i wish i was wrong


Don't we all.


----------



## Pepper (Nov 15, 2006)

gococksDJS said:


> What I have been trying to say since my first post is that the Civil War did not start in an attempt to end slavery. Slavery expansion was an argumentative point between the North and South, but not the abolition of slavery, so the South was not worried about "losing 3.5-4 million slaves" which is exactly what bigss said and why I began posting in this thread.


 
Word. 

Go Tigers.


----------



## bio-chem (Nov 15, 2006)

Pepper said:


> Word.
> 
> Go Tigers.



that post was 11 months ago?????


----------



## min0 lee (Nov 15, 2006)

bio-chem said:


> that post was 11 months ago?????


Your right, and the Tigers lost the World Series to St. Louis......sheesh, get with the program.


----------



## Pepper (Nov 15, 2006)

opps, sorry for bumping an old thread.


----------



## min0 lee (Nov 15, 2006)

Pepper said:


> opps, sorry for bumping an old thread.


Ok, I read what you had posted earlier,  that still doesn't explain the Tigers


----------



## bio-chem (Nov 15, 2006)

Pepper said:


> opps, sorry for bumping an old thread.



i dont get what your argueing.  multiple founding fathers unable to end slavery at the start of the union felt the issue of slavery was an issue large enough to disolve the union in the future


----------



## Pepper (Nov 15, 2006)

bio-chem said:


> i dont get what your argueing. multiple founding fathers unable to end slavery at the start of the union felt the issue of slavery was an issue large enough to disolve the union in the future


 
All I am saying is the the notion that the North rose up on moral grounds to end slavery is just false.

I am not trying to defend slavery or even the South. 

Slavery was a symptom of the larger problem. A huge symptom, I'll grant you.


----------



## Pepper (Nov 15, 2006)

min0 lee said:


> Your right, and the Tigers lost the World Series to St. Louis......sheesh, get with the program.


 
The Clemson Tigers play his Cocks next weekend. That is what I was refering to.


----------



## CowPimp (Nov 15, 2006)

bio-chem said:


> to heaven.
> 
> our great minds today are smart enough not to go into politics. they spend their time working for no money in non-profit organizations.  the thing back then is the good men were chosen to their positions. washington and adams never campained or asked for a position. they were put there and accepted the call of their countrymen.  alas, for roman virtue is dead me thinks



As the saying goes, the only people who can be trusted with power are those who don't want it, or something like that.  Heh.


----------



## bio-chem (Nov 15, 2006)

Pepper said:


> The Clemson Tigers play his Cocks next weekend. That is what I was refering to.



whose cocks?


----------



## bio-chem (Nov 15, 2006)

Pepper said:


> All I am saying is the the notion that the North rose up on moral grounds to end slavery is just false.
> 
> I am not trying to defend slavery or even the South.
> 
> Slavery was a symptom of the larger problem. A huge symptom, I'll grant you.


your right. the south left the union, over differences. the largest difference of the two being slavery


----------



## Pepper (Nov 15, 2006)

bio-chem said:


> your right. the south left the union, over differences. the largest difference of the two being slavery


 
I hate you for making me argue this. Around here, I usually tell the civil war folks to STFU, the war is over...however, you are misrepresenting history...

The issue was states' rights and the South's political power as their numbers fell relative to the North. 

People try to make it seem like we say that to make us look better, but I don't see how it does. Slavery was practiced, protected and promoted..whether the war was about slavery or not doesn't change that.


----------



## bio-chem (Nov 15, 2006)

Pepper said:


> whether the war was about slavery or not doesn't change that.



then why do you feel it necessary to argue the point


----------



## Pepper (Nov 15, 2006)

bio-chem said:


> then why do you feel it necessary to argue the point


 
Because your view is inaccurate.

Really, both sides of this arguement frustrate me. 

One side is revising history to suit them, the other clinging to an era that is long gone (thankfully.)


----------



## bio-chem (Nov 15, 2006)

dude. if slavery had been dealt with earlier on. the civil war would not have happened. its that simple


----------



## Pepper (Nov 15, 2006)

bio-chem said:


> dude. if slavery had been dealt with earlier on. the civil war would not have happened. its that simple


 
Very few in the North cared about slavery. Some opposed it morally, but most didn't care. Most didn't want the flow of cotton interrupted. Many were concerned with what would happen if the slaves were freed.

The South economy was fading BECAUSE of slavery. It's political power wanning b/c of the population growth in the North. Lincoln was surprisingly elected and BOOM, the South pulls out.

It is impossible to separate the Civil War from Slavery..I am just saying the notion that the North rose up on moral grounds to stomp out slavery sounds nice, but it aint so.


----------



## maniclion (Nov 15, 2006)

Pepper said:


> Very few in the North cared about slavery. Some opposed it morally, but most didn't care. Most didn't want the flow of cotton interrupted. Many were concerned with what would happen if the slaves were freed.
> 
> The South economy was fading BECAUSE of slavery. It's political power wanning b/c of the population growth in the North. Lincoln was surprisingly elected and BOOM, the South pulls out.
> 
> It is impossible to separate the Civil War from Slavery..I am just saying the notion that the North rose up on moral grounds to stomp out slavery sounds nice, but it aint so.


The war is over STFU!


----------



## bio-chem (Nov 15, 2006)

Pepper said:


> It is impossible to separate the Civil War from Slavery..I am just saying the notion that the North rose up on moral grounds to stomp out slavery sounds nice, but it aint so.



no one is saying that the north rose up on moral grounds to stop slavery.  its well documented that the south fired first. basically to protect their way of life. being slavery


----------



## bio-chem (Nov 15, 2006)

Pepper said:


> Very few in the North cared about slavery. Some opposed it morally, but most didn't care. Most didn't want the flow of cotton interrupted. Many were concerned with what would happen if the slaves were freed.
> 
> The South economy was fading BECAUSE of slavery. It's political power wanning b/c of the population growth in the North. Lincoln was surprisingly elected and BOOM, the South pulls out.
> 
> It is impossible to separate the Civil War from Slavery..I am just saying the notion that the North rose up on moral grounds to stomp out slavery sounds nice, but it aint so.



i disagree on many points with this post


----------



## Pepper (Nov 15, 2006)

bio-chem said:


> i disagree on many points with this post


 
If it makes you feel better. 

OK, I can't debate this any more. It's pointless on many levels and it puts me in bed with some folks I don't like to be associated with.

I am not a Confederate flag waver.


----------



## bio-chem (Nov 15, 2006)

Pepper said:


> If it makes you feel better.
> 
> OK, I can't debate this any more. It's pointless on many levels and it puts me in bed with some folks I don't like to be associated with.
> 
> I am not a Confederate flag waver.



no one thinks you are.  im just of the belief that without slavery early on in our history the american civil war would not have happened.  states rights vs federal rights had been argued over since the first continental congress yet it never led to all out war amongst americans untill no more compromises could come about over the issue of slavery.  on multiple occasions in the first 100 years of our history the issue of slavery was shelved in order to protect the union. that ended with the civill war


----------



## min0 lee (Nov 15, 2006)

Pepper said:


> If it makes you feel better.
> 
> OK, I can't debate this any more. It's pointless on many levels and it puts me in bed with some folks I don't like to be associated with.
> 
> I am not a Confederate flag waver.


 
I found that very interesting to be honest.

Don't stop, I see nothing wrong with a debate as long as there is no flaming is involved.
Look at the Decker and Doms debate, it's good and civil.


----------



## Pepper (Nov 15, 2006)

I think we all need to go here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/binkysgirls/

and relax.


----------



## bio-chem (Nov 15, 2006)

Pepper said:


> I think we all need to go here:
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/binkysgirls/
> 
> and relax.



whatever you say is now gospel to me. i agree with you 100%


----------



## Pepper (Nov 15, 2006)

bio-chem said:


> whatever you say is now gospel to me. i agree with you 100%


 
That site right there is why Gore gave us the internets.


----------



## tucker01 (Nov 15, 2006)

and bush uses "the google"


----------



## goandykid (Nov 15, 2006)

17 pages!?!?! I'm not reading this. Andrew Johnson.


----------



## bio-chem (Nov 15, 2006)

Pepper said:


> That site right there is why Gore gave us the internets.



im on page 40 and going strong


----------



## bio-chem (Nov 15, 2006)

goandykid said:


> 17 pages!?!?! I'm not reading this. Andrew Johnson.



we decided on page 22 your wrong


----------



## brogers (Nov 15, 2006)

I believe the Southern states had a huge problem with tariffs that the goverment was imposing on foreign goods, which was sheltering the northern industries from competition and forcing the southerners to buy the much more expensive goods from them (which became the 'cheapest' option due to the tariff).


----------

