View Full Version : 2010 Presidential Rankings
Machu505
07/15/10, 01:18 PM
1. Franklin Roosevelt
2. Theodore Roosevelt
3. Abraham Lincoln
4. George Washington
5. Thomas Jefferson
6. James Madison
7. James Monroe
8. Woodrow Wilson
9. Harry Truman
10. Dwight Eisenhower
11. John Kennedy
12. James Polk
13. Bill Clinton
14. Andrew Jackson
15. Barack Obama
16. Lyndon Johnson
17. John Adams
18. Ronald Reagan
19. John Quincy Adams
20. Grover Cleveland
21. William McKinley
22. George H.W. Bush
23. Martin Van Buren
24. William H. Taft
25. Chester A. Arthur
26. Ulysses S. Grant
27. James A. Garfield
28. Gerald Ford
29. Calvin Coolidge
30. Richard Nixon
31. Rutherford B. Hayes
32. Jimmy Carter
33. Zachary Taylor
34. Benjamin Harrison
35. William Henry Harrison
36. Herbert Hoover
37. John Tyler
38. Millard Fillmore
39. George W. Bush
40. Franklin Pierce
41. Warren Harding
42. James Buchanan
43. Andrew Johnson
http://www.siena.edu/uploadedfiles/home/parents_and_community/community_page/sri/independent_research/Presidents%202010%20Rank%20by%20Cat egory.pdf
open mind
07/15/10, 01:24 PM
i like much of what teddy roosevelt did and he got congress to do pretty much whatever he pleased, but in my mind he was to into the idea of empire and manifest destiny to be ranked that high.
Kennedy is much lower than I expected. FDR is the obvious #1 choice. Also don't think it's fair to judge Obama anywhere at this point (same could be argued for Bush 2 to a lesser extent)
Republicanman
07/15/10, 02:02 PM
The fact that President Obama or President Bush are on the list at all illustrates that this has little credibility. Any Presidential scholar will tell you it takes at least 20 years before we can adequately judge a President on his merits. That being said, I don't know what the criterion is for their rankings, but it seems expanding the federal power is high on the list.
jwicklun
07/15/10, 02:44 PM
Really cannot judge Obama till the end of his Presidency. Seems a bit premature to be making that judgement, but that said, there are going to be a lot of conservatives flipping the shit out of this one.
Ricketts
07/15/10, 02:53 PM
FDR is the obvious #1 choice.
This is what biased teachers do to people.
This is what biased teachers do to people.
This is what stupid parents do to people.
Republicanman
07/15/10, 03:14 PM
Why is FDR the #1 choice? He oversaw an, at best, mixed success at recovery in the 1930's, and knowingly, perhaps even purposefully, allowed events to unfold so that the United States would enter into World War II. His attempts to pack the Supreme Court remains one of the most egregious acts of Executive power.
Furthermore, the fact that JFK is so high on the list shows exactly why it's a farce. This is President who failed to take on significant civil rights legislation (LBJ picked up the slack), was responsible for the Bay of Pigs, and had as much to with the U.S.' quagmire in Vietnam as anybody else.
fightinirish217
07/15/10, 03:17 PM
Having Obama on here, and even W. is kind of crazy.
Machu505
07/15/10, 03:44 PM
As long as Reagan is as low as he is, I'm cool with it.
Republicanman
07/15/10, 03:46 PM
That's a very 16 year old thing to say.
The list is garbage, overall.
Machu505
07/15/10, 03:47 PM
That's a very Republicanman thing to say.
Republicanman
07/15/10, 03:49 PM
It coincidentally is also a very astute thing to say.
Do you actually believe FDR is our greatest President?
Machu505
07/15/10, 03:49 PM
I'd put Lincoln on top, but FDR in the top five.
Simulcast
07/15/10, 03:51 PM
I'd have Washington on top for having the moral fiber to step down after 2 terms, among the myriad of other great things he did.
bobsheiskawy
07/15/10, 03:52 PM
That's a very 16 year old thing to say.
The list is garbage, overall.
that's a very republican thing to say.
Republicanman
07/15/10, 03:54 PM
I don't really understand the whole Lincoln thing either. I think martyrdom suited both he and Kennedy very well.
Some of the categories for this is ridiculous. "Imagination"? "Background"? I don't understand how these are prerequisites for ranking Presidents. Also missing from their categories is "Following Article II of the Constitution."
friskycurtain
07/15/10, 04:00 PM
The list is bogus. William Henry Harrison was in office for about a month before he died and he is ranked higher than 8 other presidents including Bush.
<*)))><
07/15/10, 04:03 PM
As long as Reagan is as low as he is, I'm cool with it.
Why do you think he should be so low?
The list is bogus. William Henry Harrison was in office for about a month before he died and he is ranked higher than 8 other presidents including Bush.
It is better to do no damage than to do lots of it.
xemilylovespopx
07/15/10, 04:17 PM
I don't really understand the whole Lincoln thing either. I think martyrdom suited both he and Kennedy very well.
Some of the categories for this is ridiculous. "Imagination"? "Background"? I don't understand how these are prerequisites for ranking Presidents. Also missing from their categories is "Following Article II of the Constitution."
What would your top 5 list be then?
Machu505
07/15/10, 04:20 PM
Why do you think he should be so low?
Deregulation during his administration, the economic policy of Reaganomics, gutting social services to supplement defense spending (weaponized Keynsianism), record peacetime deficits, "Star Wars", Iran-Contra affair, the creation of the myth that he ended the Cold War, the invasion of Grenada, etc. the list goes on.
Republicanman
07/15/10, 04:25 PM
Deregulation equals lower rankings? Then why would you have Jefferson or Madison anywhere close? It sounds like you want him low because you disagree with him, not because he was or wasn't ineffective.
My top 5 would depend on what the topic would be. Most successful? Most abiding to the Constitution?
Machu505
07/15/10, 04:28 PM
Deregulation equals lower rankings? Then why would you have Jefferson or Madison anywhere close? It sounds like you want him low because you disagree with him, not because he was or wasn't ineffective.
My top 5 would depend on what the topic would be. Most successful? Most abiding to the Constitution?
I'm pretty sure the circumstances differ between 1810 and 1983.
open mind
07/15/10, 04:28 PM
Why is FDR the #1 choice? He oversaw an, at best, mixed success at recovery in the 1930's, and knowingly, perhaps even purposefully, allowed events to unfold so that the United States would enter into World War II. His attempts to pack the Supreme Court remains one of the most egregious acts of Executive power.
Furthermore, the fact that JFK is so high on the list shows exactly why it's a farce. This is President who failed to take on significant civil rights legislation (LBJ picked up the slack), was responsible for the Bay of Pigs, and had as much to with the U.S.' quagmire in Vietnam as anybody else.
his economic policies didn't effect the economy as fast as some would have liked but the public works he saw funded still benefit the economy to this day so i'd say they were a success.
even if he did purposefully bring us into wwII we emerged from it as a superpower that saw incredible economic growth and global influence.
my view is that jfk would have passed civil rights legislation if he had lived out his term. kennedy was not very hawkish on vietnam as far as i know.
Machu505
07/15/10, 04:30 PM
Are you insinuating that silly "FDR let Pearl Harbor happen" conspiracy theory, Republicanman?
loveisdead
07/15/10, 04:32 PM
Andrew Jackson should be ranked much lower.
open mind
07/15/10, 04:32 PM
Why do you think he should be so low?
iran-contra, savings and loans debacles, the star wars program, funding and arming what became our enemies, kicking off the culture of deregulation that led to our current economic troubles, escalation of the war on drugs, use of religion as a political tool, and cutting vital social services.
open mind
07/15/10, 04:42 PM
Andrew Jackson should be ranked much lower.
yeah, fuck that guy.
Kozzy333
07/15/10, 04:45 PM
T. Roosevelt was a bad ass mother fucker. He would have been number one if bad ass mother fucker was a category.
open mind
07/15/10, 04:48 PM
T. Roosevelt was a bad ass mother fucker. He would have been number one if bad ass mother fucker was a category.
i think it's kind of ironic that he created so many national parks to preserve nature yet couldn't help but kill every type of animal he possibly could.
You need to preserve nature in order to shoot the things that inhabit it.
open mind
07/15/10, 05:18 PM
You need to preserve nature in order to shoot the things that inhabit it.
i get that you're joking (or are you being serious?), but i seriously can't understand the desire to kill an animal if you don't plan on using as much of it as you possibly can to survive.....my attitude is fuck "sportsman" who kill for pleasure, but that's probably just the eskimo (and beer) in me talking.
loveisdead
07/15/10, 05:42 PM
yeah, fuck that guy.
Seriously. Easily one of my least favorite presidents.
greenteaallday
07/15/10, 05:47 PM
Why is FDR the #1 choice? He oversaw an, at best, mixed success at recovery in the 1930's, and knowingly, perhaps even purposefully, allowed events to unfold so that the United States would enter into World War II. His attempts to pack the Supreme Court remains one of the most egregious acts of Executive power.
Yup, all credibility gone.
Theseventhson
07/15/10, 05:49 PM
Yeah, fuck him!
BrennanHickson
07/15/10, 05:52 PM
1. Franklin Roosevelt
2. Theodore Roosevelt
3. Abraham Lincoln
4. George Washington
5. Thomas Jefferson
6. James Madison
7. James Monroe
8. Woodrow Wilson
9. Harry Truman
10. Dwight Eisenhower
11. John Kennedy
12. James Polk
13. Bill Clinton
14. Andrew Jackson
15. Barack Obama
16. Lyndon Johnson
17. John Adams
18. Ronald Reagan
19. John Quincy Adams
20. Grover Cleveland
21. William McKinley
22. George H.W. Bush
23. Martin Van Buren
24. William H. Taft
25. Chester A. Arthur
26. Ulysses S. Grant
27. James A. Garfield
28. Gerald Ford
29. Calvin Coolidge
30. Richard Nixon
31. Rutherford B. Hayes
32. Jimmy Carter
33. Zachary Taylor
34. Benjamin Harrison
35. William Henry Harrison
36. Herbert Hoover
37. John Tyler
38. Millard Fillmore
39. George W. Bush
40. Franklin Pierce
41. Warren Harding
42. James Buchanan
43. Andrew Johnson
http://www.siena.edu/uploadedfiles/home/parents_and_community/community_page/sri/independent_research/Presidents%202010%20Rank%20by%20Cat egory.pdf
Gotta feel bad for anyone below him.
Aside from W. Bush, that is.
Ricketts
07/15/10, 05:56 PM
This is what stupid parents do to people.
I didn't expect an intelligent response based on your previous post.
open mind
07/15/10, 05:58 PM
Seriously. Easily one of my least favorite presidents.
in my mind all his accomplishments are nullified by his gross mistreatment of native americans.
loveisdead
07/15/10, 05:59 PM
in my mind all his accomplishments are nullified by his gross mistreatment of native americans.
We are completely on the same page. Mistreatment is a gross understatement, too.
open mind
07/15/10, 06:02 PM
We are completely on the same page. Mistreatment is a gross understatement, too.
i realize that all comparisons to hitler are derided as godwinning a thread but i don't think there's a more apt comparison.....in reality jackson was a much more successful ethnic cleanser (not in numbers killed, but in removing a unwanted minority from a society).
saysmydoctor
07/15/10, 06:16 PM
I don't see why we need to wait 20 years to Bush. :rolleyes:
saysmydoctor
07/15/10, 06:18 PM
Andrew Jackson should be ranked much lower.
yeah, fuck that guy.
Only President except for Clinton to balance the budget and he also paid off a lot of the US debt. I'm not saying that exonerates him for some of his other actions, but I find Jackson to be one of the most fascinating presidencies. :shrug:
Also, Reagan should be lower.
loveisdead
07/15/10, 06:19 PM
Only President except for Clinton to balance the budget and he also paid off a lot of the US debt. I'm not saying that exonerates him for some of his other actions, but I find Jackson to be one of the most fascinating presidencies. :shrug:
Also, Reagan should be lower.
Fascinating isn't the same as good. You're also forgetting how he completely ignored that the Supreme Court existed.
saysmydoctor
07/15/10, 06:20 PM
FDR is number one and he blatantly tried to make the Court work for him.
loveisdead
07/15/10, 06:23 PM
I'd take what FDR did to the courts over what Jackson did.
open mind
07/15/10, 06:30 PM
Only President except for Clinton to balance the budget and he also paid off a lot of the US debt. I'm not saying that exonerates him for some of his other actions, but I find Jackson to be one of the most fascinating presidencies. :shrug:
Also, Reagan should be lower.
when i read about andrew jackson and the bullshit he spouted fascinating is the last word that comes to mind.
here's a direct quote of his concerning his opinion on the indian removal act that pisses me off to no end.
"It will separate the Indians from immediate contact with settlements of whites; free them from the power of the States; enable them to pursue happiness in their own way and under their own rude institutions; will retard the progress of decay, which is lessening their numbers, and perhaps cause them gradually, under the protection of the Government and through the influence of good counsels, to cast off their savage habits and become an interesting, civilized, and Christian community."
loveisdead
07/15/10, 06:32 PM
when i read about andrew jackson and the bullshit he spouted fascinating is the last word that comes to mind.
here's a direct quote of his concerning his opinion on the indian removal act that pisses me off to no end.
"It will separate the Indians from immediate contact with settlements of whites; free them from the power of the States; enable them to pursue happiness in their own way and under their own rude institutions; will retard the progress of decay, which is lessening their numbers, and perhaps cause them gradually, under the protection of the Government and through the influence of good counsels, to cast off their savage habits and become an interesting, civilized, and Christian community."
Real winner.
saysmydoctor
07/15/10, 06:50 PM
I never said I approved of all his actions. I just said he was fascinating.
open mind
07/15/10, 07:00 PM
I never said I approved of all his actions. I just said he was fascinating.
i can't explain why exactly (besides obvious bias) but i'm offended when people talk about the likes of jackson in anything approaching a positive light.
saysmydoctor
07/15/10, 07:18 PM
Because he did do good things.
For instance, I consider LBJ to be one of the best presidents this country ever had. That being said, Vietnam was ridiculous.
Matt Chylak
07/15/10, 07:22 PM
You need to preserve nature in order to shoot the things that inhabit it.
hear, hear!
open mind
07/15/10, 07:27 PM
Because he did do good things.
For instance, I consider LBJ to be one of the best presidents this country ever had. That being said, Vietnam was ridiculous.
i never would have suspected we held such differing views on presidents (aside from jackson since we've discussed him before). lbj was a shit president who's only redeeming qualities were enacting some of jfk's intended policies in my mind.
FueledByFrodo
07/15/10, 07:37 PM
The list is bogus. William Henry Harrison was in office for about a month before he died and he is ranked higher than 8 other presidents including Bush.
He did a much better job than Bush.
Scrandon
07/15/10, 07:57 PM
Lincoln should be number 1.
Oh and would people stop trying to blame the financial problems on one guy? It wasn't just Bush, it wasn't just Reagan; it has been multiple presidents and a majority of party leaders on both sides of the fence who have been involved in the trend of de-regulation.
xshady121
07/15/10, 08:00 PM
I'm pretty sure the circumstances differ between 1810 and 1983.
Nope. It's black or white machumatt.
i get that you're joking (or are you being serious?), but i seriously can't understand the desire to kill an animal if you don't plan on using as much of it as you possibly can to survive.....my attitude is fuck "sportsman" who kill for pleasure, but that's probably just the eskimo (and beer) in me talking.
Oh hai john locke, is that you?
Gotta feel bad for anyone below him.
Aside from W. Bush, that is.
Unfunny joke is unfunny.
I didn't expect an intelligent response based on your previous post.
While he's spitting mostly nonsense, some of it is worth talking about. What he said to you was quite relevant.
I don't see why we need to wait 20 years to Bush. :rolleyes:
You know better than that.
I'd take what FDR did to the courts over what Jackson did.
Bite your tongue!
Because he did do good things.
For instance, I consider LBJ to be one of the best presidents this country ever had. That being said, Vietnam was ridiculous.
LBJ was garbage.
He did a much better job than Bush.
Take a class on the Presidency and then get back to me on that. Your statement was so stupid that I've lost any respect I've ever had for you. Your attempt at wit was incredibly misplaced. Unless, you were trying to be serious, which in that case your ignorance is incredibly hindering your ability to contribute to this conversation.
FueledByFrodo
07/15/10, 08:02 PM
Take a class on the Presidency and then get back to me on that. Your statement was so stupid that I've lost any respect I've ever had for you. Your attempt at wit was incredibly misplaced. Unless, you were trying to be serious, which in that case your ignorance is incredibly hindering your ability to contribute to this conversation.
I was not.
xshady121
07/15/10, 08:03 PM
I was not.
So it was the former?
FueledByFrodo
07/15/10, 08:05 PM
So it was the former?
Correct. I'm not too witty.
saysmydoctor
07/15/10, 08:34 PM
Better than what? Bush was garbage. I don't have to wait 20 years to see his policies pan out.
Iraq: quagmire. Afghanistan: quagmire. On the homefront, country: Bankrupt. Unemployment and job creation: rampant and none from him. Tax cuts: failure. Medicare: He broke it.
If anyone should know better, it's you.
Republicanman
07/15/10, 08:34 PM
i can't explain why exactly (besides obvious bias) but i'm offended when people talk about the likes of jackson in anything approaching a positive light.
The irony of this quote and your sn cannot be ignored.
I'm pretty sure the circumstances differ between 1810 and 1983.
And? It doesn't change the fact Presidents shouldn't be ranked on your personal ideology.
his economic policies didn't effect the economy as fast as some would have liked but the public works he saw funded still benefit the economy to this day so i'd say they were a success.
Do you mean Social Security? I don't see how that benefits the economy. You can argue that it benefits a select group of people, but it's an obvious boondoggle to our yearly budget. It's essentially insolvent.
even if he did purposefully bring us into wwII we emerged from it as a superpower that saw incredible economic growth and global influence.
It also led us into being a never-ending empire, with the largest defense budget in the world.
my view is that jfk would have passed civil rights legislation if he had lived out his term. kennedy was not very hawkish on vietnam as far as i know.
There's no way to verify the first claim one way or another, but I have a feeling McNamara was going to push for war no matter what.
Yup, all credibility gone.
This is the obligatory response where I say, "Gee, why don't you address my points with substance, instead of vapid nonsense."
BrennanHickson
07/15/10, 09:01 PM
Unfunny joke is unfunny.
The funny part about it, though, is that I was completely serious.
Ricketts
07/15/10, 09:07 PM
While he's spitting mostly nonsense, some of it is worth talking about. What he said to you was quite relevant.
My parents are relevant? If they knew anything about American history then I guess they would be but I don't think so.
SlappedActor
07/15/10, 09:14 PM
These lists are always a clusterfuck, but serious lulz for Obama at #15.
To put Obama on this list as the 15th highest ranked president is ridiculous. I'm not even basing this on anything he's done (or hasn't done), but he shouldn't even be on this list yet. And why he's ranked that high at this point is laughable too. To be fair, I don't think W. Bush shouldn't be on this list yet either. Those essentially strip this list of any credibility.
It's like ranking your favorite band's albums. If there's one that just came out, it's not really fair to measure it up against the others until time has passed to put it in proper perspective.
Republicanman
07/15/10, 09:18 PM
The simple reason why W. shouldn't be on the list is that, when finishing his term as President, Harry Truman was considered a failure by most scholars. It took a generation to see the impact he had on the U.S. This is similar to James K. Polk, who expanded the country more than any other President.
The simple reason why W. shouldn't be on the list is that, when finishing his term as President, Harry Truman was considered a failure by most scholars. It took a generation to see the impact he had on the U.S. This is similar to James K. Polk, who expanded the country more than any other President.
Agreed.
saysmydoctor
07/15/10, 09:46 PM
The simple reason why W. shouldn't be on the list is that, when finishing his term as President, Harry Truman was considered a failure by most scholars. It took a generation to see the impact he had on the U.S. This is similar to James K. Polk, who expanded the country more than any other President.
1. We've seen the impact of Bush policies. We're suffering because of them today.
2. Who cares if he expanded the country? Work on your priorities.
Republicanman
07/15/10, 09:50 PM
1.We also suffer today because of Clinton policies, Reagan policies, LBJ policies, FDR policies and even Woodrow Wilson policies. What's your point? That we must have instant gratification to declare an unpopular President 39th? Once again, I point you to Truman.
2. They aren't my priorities, they are the Presidential scholar's priorities. My priorities stem from Constitutionally sound Presidencies and Executive restraint.
The fact that President Obama or President Bush are on the list at all illustrates that this has little credibility. Any Presidential scholar will tell you it takes at least 20 years before we can adequately judge a President on his merits. That being said, I don't know what the criterion is for their rankings, but it seems expanding the federal power is high on the list.
True. Only time will tell how these decisions affected the country. I felt Abraham Lincoln should have been number one on the list. He united the country and ended slavery. We would not have any of the things we have today without him.
Really should wait a few years to add Bush and Obama.
Also random question - Was Buchanan the one that got stuck in a bath tub? Wasn't there some president that got stuck in a bath tub once? Wasn't he also the one that never had a wife and was arguably a closet gay? I'm trying to remember all those 5 minute videos on presidents I watched in HS. All the early ones got muddled together and I can hardly remember any of the ones after the first four and before Lincoln.
Machu505
07/15/10, 11:42 PM
Really should wait a few years to add Bush and Obama.
Also random question - Was Buchanan the one that got stuck in a bath tub? Wasn't there some president that got stuck in a bath tub once? Wasn't he also the one that never had a wife and was arguably a closet gay? I'm trying to remember all those 5 minute videos on presidents I watched in HS. All the early ones got muddled together and I can hardly remember any of the ones after the first four and before Lincoln.
Taft got stuck in the tub, but Buchanan is suspected to be gay.
GuitarR0cker1
07/15/10, 11:43 PM
Is it weird that I want to make a list of my rankings now?
What the fuck is Obama doing up there? You can't accurately judge a presidency when it's happening.
Sultan of Swine
07/16/10, 12:07 AM
Both Roosevelts above Washington and Lincoln? Ridiculous. (By the way, you could add Lincoln to the list of Presidents who were, for the most part, hated in their day, and ended up being remembered as marvelous leaders)
But even more ridiculous, Obama and Clinton in the top twenty and Bush in the bottom five. Obama's achievement- cramming a 2,000 page health care bill down our throats that nobody read. Splendid leadership!
1. We've seen the impact of Bush policies. We're suffering because of them today.
2. Who cares if he expanded the country? Work on your priorities.
Since earlier you said the Bush tax cuts failed, please explain to me how "we're suffering" because of them. And how Barack "Blame My Predecessor" Obama's plan to repeal them will lead to us no longer "suffering."
saysmydoctor
07/16/10, 12:13 AM
Both Roosevelts above Washington and Lincoln? Ridiculous. (By the way, you could add Lincoln to the list of Presidents who were, for the most part, hated in their day, and ended up being remembered as marvelous leaders)
But even more ridiculous, Obama and Clinton in the top twenty and Bush in the bottom five. Obama's achievement- cramming a 2,000 page health care bill down our throats that nobody read. Splendid leadership!
Since earlier you said the Bush tax cuts failed, please explain to me how "we're suffering" because of them. And how Barack "Blame My Predecessor" Obama's plan to repeal them will lead to us no longer "suffering."
Holy shit, Glenn Beck has granted Absolutepunk a visit.
Sultan of Swine
07/16/10, 12:14 AM
Holy shit, Glenn Beck has granted Absolutepunk a visit.
And he's waiting for an answer. . .
saysmydoctor
07/16/10, 12:19 AM
And he's waiting for an answer. . .
I'm not going to satisfy that obnoxious post with a legitimate response. GeeBee mentioned soundbytes earlier. If I wanted those, I'd watch TV.
Sultan of Swine
07/16/10, 12:23 AM
I'm not going to satisfy that obnoxious post with a legitimate response. GeeBee mentioned soundbytes earlier. If I wanted those, I'd watch TV.
So expressing disgust with the Roosevelts being above Lincoln and Washington, Obama and Clinton being in the top 20, naming Obama's lone "accomplishment," and asking why the Bush tax cuts failed is "obnoxious." Sorry for wasting your time. I guess liberalism is the only belief system that can live off "soundbytes" and doesn't need to answer for anything these days. Good luck in the 2010 elections, guys. . .
saysmydoctor
07/16/10, 12:58 AM
1. I don't believe Obama belongs on the list.
2. I don't consider the healthcare bill's passage to be an accomplishment by any stroke of the imagination, rather an incremental change that fixes some things and allows other issues to fester.
3. The Bush tax cuts are a failure by design. The rich didn't warrant the tax cut and they inflated the deficit--Bush didn't pay for them (which can't be said about Obama's healthcare bill, which is entirely paid for and cost-cutting).
4. I'm not a liberal.
5. Good luck? It's definitely on the Democrats' side. I mean, for instance, the GOP and the Tea Party had a solid chance at ousting the majority leader and blew it by nominating a complete idiot to be their candidate. Or there's Rand Paul, who makes Bunning look not so retarded after all (great pitcher though). Or there's Scott Brown, who voted for the finreg legislation today because he wants to get reelected and he knows how he has to go about that. Not sure why you brought this up, because this was never a partisan discussion but rather a discussion about the presidential rankings. There's a midterm election thread. Thanks.
Republicanman
07/16/10, 01:22 AM
Did you just say that the Health Care bill was entirely paid for? I think you must be mistaken, when you take into account the actual cost of full implementation, and not just the budgetary gimmicks used to keep the cost under $1 Trillion.
Also, did you just say that the rich "Didn't warrant the tax cut"? Never mind that the Bush tax cuts were across the board, but the problem wasn't the cuts, but the spending that followed.
GuitarR0cker1
07/16/10, 03:07 AM
Did you just say that the Health Care bill was entirely paid for? I think you must be mistaken, when you take into account the actual cost of full implementation, and not just the budgetary gimmicks used to keep the cost under $1 Trillion.
Also, did you just say that the rich "Didn't warrant the tax cut"? Never mind that the Bush tax cuts were across the board, but the problem wasn't the cuts, but the spending that followed.
http://images2.dailykos.com/images/user/3/Bush_Deficit.jpg
Yeah bro tax cuts weren't a big deal.
saysmydoctor
07/16/10, 03:23 AM
Did you just say that the Health Care bill was entirely paid for? I think you must be mistaken, when you take into account the actual cost of full implementation, and not just the budgetary gimmicks used to keep the cost under $1 Trillion.
Also, did you just say that the rich "Didn't warrant the tax cut"? Never mind that the Bush tax cuts were across the board, but the problem wasn't the cuts, but the spending that followed.
I'm not mistaken.
And no, the problem was the cuts. The spending was a problem because they didn't have any money to spend because they cut the revenue stream. This isn't hard.
Republicanman
07/16/10, 05:43 AM
http://images2.dailykos.com/images/user/3/Bush_Deficit.jpg
Yeah bro tax cuts weren't a big deal.
Once again, the tax cuts are only a problem because there were not cuts in spending to offset them. This is the primary Republican problem over the last 30 years.
I'm not mistaken.
And no, the problem was the cuts. The spending was a problem because they didn't have any money to spend because they cut the revenue stream. This isn't hard.
You're simply looking at it from the opposite side. You don't mind the spending, but mind the cuts. I don't mind the cuts, but mind the spending. We simply have opposing philosophical views. So you're right, this isn't hard.
I'm sure Sean minds a lot of that spending, particularly since most of it is tied up in two foreign wars and relief efforts designed to stem the tide of the bad economic policies he's railing against in this thread.
Republicanman
07/16/10, 06:22 AM
As for the latter of your points, Keynesian spending during recessions always equal budget deficits. Obviously, both of the wars should be ended, and the Defense Department's budget slashed tremendously. But the problem I see (not just with him, but many economists on the left) is that they confuse tax cuts with entitlement spending. For instance, Eugene Robinson today claimed that the Bush tax cuts, "Squeezed wealth from the middle class and transferred it to the upper class."
This is patently untrue. All a tax cut allows is for a person to keep more of the money they earned through their particular trade. Now, you can argue such policies contributed to the income inequality in our country, but tax cuts by themselves do not directly bequeath deficits. Only if spending does not account for said tax cuts do we have a problem. And THIS is the GOP's major fault, both with Bush and Reagan.
EDIT:
Head here (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/historicals/) and take a look at table 1.2. It clearly shows that, while intake for the federal government has stayed within historical numbers, the outlays are at all time highs.
hello299
07/16/10, 09:16 AM
Taft got stuck in the tub, but Buchanan is suspected to be gay.
Don't people also think Lincoln was gay too?
poor william henry harrison. never had a chance.
4. I'm not a liberal.
what would you consider yourself?
saysmydoctor
07/16/10, 10:36 AM
You're simply looking at it from the opposite side. You don't mind the spending, but mind the cuts. I don't mind the cuts, but mind the spending. We simply have opposing philosophical views. So you're right, this isn't hard.
I do mind the spending.
Republicanman
07/16/10, 11:10 AM
Well good, we agree then.
Polk's one of the ones that always blends in for me (Buchanan, Pierce, Tyler, etc ) so I'm gonna have to look more into him based on his ranking on this list. and Obama should not be on there, yet.
Republicanman
07/16/10, 11:37 AM
Polk is miles ahead of those Presidents as far as impact on the country.
<*)))><
07/16/10, 11:41 AM
Polk got us Texas so he is the only important President.
Polk is miles ahead of those Presidents as far as impact on the country.
are you talking about the ones i mentioned or the ones above Polk on the list?
either way, like i said, i'd need to look him up to remind myself of what he did. all those guys between jackson and lincoln kinda blend in for me. except for zach taylor and WH harrison but that's only because they died really early in office.
xshady121
07/16/10, 12:13 PM
Don't people also think Lincoln was gay too?
and black.
xshady121
07/16/10, 12:13 PM
The funny part about it, though, is that I was completely serious.
Then you're a fucking moron.
BrennanHickson
07/16/10, 12:48 PM
Then you're a fucking moron.
It looks as though your entire policy (at least, in this thread) is: "Attempt to insult anybody who expresses any sort of opposition to George W. Bush." Is there any logical reinforcement for this chosen stance or are you simply going to continue responding with immature, hardly offensive statements?
Justin_stacy
07/16/10, 01:05 PM
Don't people also think Lincoln was gay too?
the difference is there is historic support that Buchanan and William King had a 12 year relationship. the claim against lincoln is based mainly on the writtings of one revisionist writter.
aoftbsten
07/16/10, 01:07 PM
Why is "Background" important in ranking the Presidents?
hello299
07/16/10, 02:55 PM
the difference is there is historic support that Buchanan and William King had a 12 year relationship. the claim against lincoln is based mainly on the writtings of one revisionist writter.
Ah, I see. Thanks for that nugget of info!
xshady121
07/16/10, 06:21 PM
Ryan
yo
9:18pmMe
yo
that girl brennan hickson is garbage. easily the worst poster on the boards
9:18pmRyan
what is with this massive influx of conservative posters
not easily but yeah she sucks
9:19pmMe
like "oh omg i'm going to be so edgy and say W is the worst president evar and deserves a painful death because i obviously have no clue about presidential history omgz omgz"
9:19pmRyan
haha fuck her
that list is retarded anyway
9:21pmMe
i love sophmore highschoolers who think they know more about presidential history than the leading scholars in the field. or even people who have taken courses in it and read books on it. but apparently, cursory viewing of msnbc is just as good as years of research on the subject now a days.
Ryan
hahaha for sure
xshady121
07/16/10, 06:24 PM
It looks as though your entire policy (at least, in this thread) is: "Attempt to insult anybody who expresses any sort of opposition to George W. Bush." Is there any logical reinforcement for this chosen stance or are you simply going to continue responding with immature, hardly offensive statements?
You're 15. When you have the slightest clue about Presidential History sweetie, than I'll bother debating with you. Until then all you have to go by is what your parents and Olbermann are feeding you.
For starters, pick up a book by Dahl or Greenstein. When your versed in them then we'll talk.
BrennanHickson
07/16/10, 08:16 PM
You're 15. When you have the slightest clue about Presidential History sweetie, than I'll bother debating with you. Until then all you have to go by is what your parents and Olbermann are feeding you.
For starters, pick up a book by Dahl or Greenstein. When your versed in them then we'll talk.
Correction: "When you're versed in them..."
Looks like you could read a book or two yourself.
xshady121
07/16/10, 10:30 PM
Correction: "When you're versed in them..."
Looks like you could read a book or two yourself.
Hahaha real mature. Also classy to ignore the point.
Point of the matter is you know nothing of presidential history and hate W cause you think it's cool.
saysmydoctor
07/16/10, 10:58 PM
Well good, we agree then.
No, we don't.
loveisdead
07/16/10, 11:23 PM
Hahaha real mature. Also classy to ignore the point.
Point of the matter is you know nothing of presidential history and hate W cause you think it's cool.
People hate bush cause of what he did this country. Even if she's the most uneducated person in the world she could know that he sucked.
open mind
07/17/10, 05:40 AM
irony of this quote and your sn cannot be ignored.
i'm sorry but i'm not open minded enough to be fan of ethnic cleansers.
you mean Social Security? I don't see how that benefits the economy. You can argue that it benefits a select group of people, but it's an obvious boondoggle to our yearly budget. It's essentially insolvent.
no i mean roads, bridges, railroads, and tourist attractions among other things.
mcnamara may have been hawkish but jfk showed that he wasn't big on the idea of sparking armed conflict with the bay of pigs and cuban missile crisis....while lbj brought us into all out war with a fabricated attack in the gulf of tonkin.
xshady121
07/17/10, 07:41 AM
People hate bush cause of what he did this country. Even if she's the most uneducated person in the world she could know that he sucked.
There is a difference between hating bush and thinking he is the absolute worst president in history (or however she put it).
BrennanHickson
07/17/10, 08:43 AM
Hahaha real mature. Also classy to ignore the point.
Point of the matter is you know nothing of presidential history and hate W cause you think it's cool.
Ha. Given that I live in Alabama, the "cooler" thing to do would certainly not be to make the claim that I disapprove of Bush.
Oh, and I never said I "hate" W., nor did I say that he deserves a painful death.
repr1ze
07/17/10, 07:47 PM
How are FDR and Lincoln in the top 10? Lincoln waged a war on his own people in the name of unity and FDR threw his citizens into interment camps while he expanded the government 10 fold.. The man thought he was a king... Seriously the president who started the global American Empire and threw his citizens into internment camps because of their race is number 1?
the south attacked first, not the other way around. i'm objecting to your use of the phrase "lincoln waged a war", it just sounds inaccurate.
loveisdead
07/17/10, 10:52 PM
the south attacked first, not the other way around. i'm objecting to your use of the phrase "lincoln waged a war", it just sounds inaccurate.
Backed.
caveBEAR
07/17/10, 11:16 PM
But even more ridiculous, Obama and Clinton in the top twenty and Bush in the bottom five. Obama's achievement- cramming a 2,000 page health care bill down our throats that nobody read. Splendid leadership!
Even if this scenario was the black and white reality, why do people always blame Obama for everyone 'not reading the bill'? I've never understood why it's apparently Obama's job to make sure people are reading the bills they're voting on.
zion the lion
07/17/10, 11:41 PM
Ryan
yo
9:18pmMe
yo
that girl brennan hickson is garbage. easily the worst poster on the boards
9:18pmRyan
what is with this massive influx of conservative posters
not easily but yeah she sucks
9:19pmMe
like "oh omg i'm going to be so edgy and say W is the worst president evar and deserves a painful death because i obviously have no clue about presidential history omgz omgz"
9:19pmRyan
haha fuck her
that list is retarded anyway
9:21pmMe
i love sophmore highschoolers who think they know more about presidential history than the leading scholars in the field. or even people who have taken courses in it and read books on it. but apparently, cursory viewing of msnbc is just as good as years of research on the subject now a days.
Ryan
hahaha for sure
I'd like to ask and/or say a few things to you about this post.
1. Who the fuck is Ryan? (also ryan was going to be my name at one point)
2. you ever notice how hyperbolic that insult is and how easily it gets thrown around? Unless everyone dethrowned me as "the worst poster in these boards evar"
3. Who's in your avatar, and when did you change it, but mainly who is in it?
4. I didnt even realize it was you.
saysmydoctor
07/18/10, 12:37 AM
How are FDR and Lincoln in the top 10? Lincoln waged a war on his own people in the name of unity and FDR threw his citizens into interment camps while he expanded the government 10 fold.. The man thought he was a king... Seriously the president who started the global American Empire and threw his citizens into internment camps because of their race is number 1?
FDR =/= Monroe
xshady121
07/18/10, 08:07 AM
I'd like to ask and/or say a few things to you about this post.
1. Who the fuck is Ryan? (also ryan was going to be my name at one point)
2. you ever notice how hyperbolic that insult is and how easily it gets thrown around? Unless everyone dethrowned me as "the worst poster in these boards evar"
3. Who's in your avatar, and when did you change it, but mainly who is in it?
4. I didnt even realize it was you.
1) Love is dead.
2) Yes, and it's true. Stupid is surprisingly taken to new levels all the time.
3) Thierry Henry.
4) Sorry.
zion the lion
07/18/10, 05:12 PM
1) Love is dead.
2) Yes, and it's true. Stupid is surprisingly taken to new levels all the time.
3) Thierry Henry.
4) Sorry.
Oh, him...
and I dont know who that is.
Okie dokie.
Praetor
07/18/10, 05:22 PM
Obama above Johnson is laughable. All in all I disagree with much of the list. But honestly I'm just a cynic and find the bad parts in most all presidencies to outweigh the good.
Praetor
07/18/10, 05:24 PM
Both Roosevelts above Washington and Lincoln? Ridiculous. (By the way, you could add Lincoln to the list of Presidents who were, for the most part, hated in their day, and ended up being remembered as marvelous leaders)
But even more ridiculous, Obama and Clinton in the top twenty and Bush in the bottom five. Obama's achievement- cramming a 2,000 page health care bill down our throats that nobody read. Splendid leadership!
Since earlier you said the Bush tax cuts failed, please explain to me how "we're suffering" because of them. And how Barack "Blame My Predecessor" Obama's plan to repeal them will lead to us no longer "suffering."
Based on your post I'm assuming you have a boner for Reagan, which makes this snippet all the more ironic.
loveisdead
07/18/10, 06:12 PM
Oh, him...
and I dont know who that is.
Okie dokie.
Thanks!
Henry is a very famous soccer player who just decided to play in the mls. He's pulling a Davis beckham.
zion the lion
07/18/10, 06:24 PM
Thanks!
Henry is a very famous soccer player who just decided to play in the mls. He's pulling a Davis beckham.
Yeah, well, if you were like "who's chrissy?" and someone said "chrissy is zion the lion" you'd be like "oh, her..." or have some other reaction....if my name was chrissy.
I dont know anything about sports, so okay. And, David?
loveisdead
07/18/10, 06:27 PM
Yeah, well, if you were like "who's chrissy?" and someone said "chrissy is zion the lion" you'd be like "oh, her..." or have some other reaction....if my name was chrissy.
I dont know anything about sports, so okay. And, David?
Haha yeah David sorry I was on my phone(still am) and not paying all that much attention. And no, I wouldn't say that.
xshady121
07/18/10, 06:29 PM
Thanks!
Henry is a very famous soccer player who just decided to play in the mls. He's pulling a Davis beckham.
Hogwash. Henry is a player in his prime that can start on any team in the world. Becks was washed up at the time.
loveisdead
07/18/10, 06:31 PM
Hogwash. Henry is a player in his prime that can start on any team in the world. Becks was washed up at the time.
All I read is "soccer sucks."
Machu505
07/18/10, 07:31 PM
How are FDR and Lincoln in the top 10? Lincoln waged a war on his own people in the name of unity
I really should have stopped reading here. That "War of Northern Aggression" bullshit is bullshit indeed. The southern states had no right to secede and we did them a big favor by taking them back.
and FDR threw his citizens into interment camps
True, and sad.
while he expanded the government 10 fold..
For the better.
The man thought he was a king...
If you say so. He helped the poor people out quite a bit and that doesn't sound too kingly to me.
Seriously the president who started the global American Empire
Theodore Roosevelt?
and threw his citizens into internment camps because of their race is number 1?
Go ahead, I want to hear your #1. I'll find something despicable about them.
majinsharingan
07/18/10, 10:28 PM
Personally my favorites are FDR, Wilson, and Lincoln. But I don't think it's fair to rank them "officially". Because Jackson wasn't president during WWII so we can't judge him on the same field as FDR because they did different things during different times.
Also surprised to see Jackson so high on the list, guess people's opinion of him has changed but from what I've heard most people dislike him.
And I am glad to see that Pierce is almost last...for the life of me I couldn't find out who the hell he was and at one point believed he was never actually president. I wanted to find out more about him via history textbooks and well...they don't say a damn thing about Pierce.
JuneJuly
07/18/10, 11:05 PM
Hogwash. Henry is a player in his prime that can start on any team in the world. Becks was washed up at the time.
the real question is then...why the hell would you come to the MLS when you were starting for Barca just last season? Not like he couldn't a) get more money elsewhere b) have more competition elsewhere
xshady121
07/19/10, 04:55 AM
the real question is then...why the hell would you come to the MLS when you were starting for Barca just last season? Not like he couldn't a) get more money elsewhere b) have more competition elsewhere
A) Dude has a huge hard on for new york city.
b) he's won everything everywhere (sans serie a of course)
c) He is getting paid a shit ton of money here (arguably more than he could have made abroad).
How are FDR and Lincoln in the top 10? Lincoln waged a war on his own people in the name of unity and FDR threw his citizens into interment camps while he expanded the government 10 fold.. The man thought he was a king... Seriously the president who started the global American Empire and threw his citizens into internment camps because of their race is number 1?
Way to quote Friday's Sean Hannity Show verbatum... Someone else already went line by line thorugh this, I don't have to.
A) Dude has a huge hard on for new york city.
didn't NY finish like...2nd to last, last season??? ;-)
A) Dude has a huge hard on for new york city.
b) he's won everything everywhere (sans serie a of course)
c) He is getting paid a shit ton of money here (arguably more than he could have made abroad).
how much is he making?
xshady121
07/19/10, 12:53 PM
didn't NY finish like...2nd to last, last season??? ;-)
And they made the mls finals the year before that,
New York has a very good team. Last year was more of a fluke than anything.
Just yankin' your chain :)
Where is the pitch anyway? I don't remember seeing a stadium anywhere
repr1ze
07/19/10, 01:52 PM
I really should have stopped reading here. That "War of Northern Aggression" bullshit is bullshit indeed. The southern states had no right to secede and we did them a big favor by taking them back.
"Thank god we broke away from that awful british empire. Hey! I heard the South is trying to brake away from us.. TRAITORS!"
Why does it matter if they secede. What right do we have to wage a war on them for wanting something different?
Go ahead, I want to hear your #1. I'll find something despicable about them.
William Henry Harrison was awesome.
caveBEAR
07/19/10, 02:08 PM
:popcorn:
Machu505
07/19/10, 02:36 PM
"Thank god we broke away from that awful british empire. Hey! I heard the South is trying to brake away from us.. TRAITORS!"
Why does it matter if they secede. What right do we have to wage a war on them for wanting something different?
Don't try and compare the American Revolution with the Civil War. You know they're vastly different and hardly comparable.
xshady121
07/19/10, 03:54 PM
:popcorn:
I belong to another forum that everytime an argument is brewing, this gif gets used.
http://i300.photobucket.com/albums/nn15/xcutor/scarlettpopcornlol.gif
repr1ze
07/19/10, 04:41 PM
Don't try and compare the American Revolution with the Civil War. You know they're vastly different and hardly comparable.
How are they hardly comparable?
caveBEAR
07/19/10, 04:43 PM
I belong to another forum that everytime an argument is brewing, this gif gets used.
http://i300.photobucket.com/albums/nn15/xcutor/scarlettpopcornlol.gif
Is that Scarlet? :swoon:
Jake Gyllenhaal
07/19/10, 04:47 PM
I belong to another forum that everytime an argument is brewing, this gif gets used.
http://i300.photobucket.com/albums/nn15/xcutor/scarlettpopcornlol.gif
what movie is that from?
"Thank god we broke away from that awful british empire. Hey! I heard the South is trying to brake away from us.. TRAITORS!"
Why does it matter if they secede. What right do we have to wage a war on them for wanting something different?
Owning another human?
repr1ze
07/19/10, 05:13 PM
Owning another human?
The Civil War was not a war on slavery.... The Union had plenty of slaves lol...
The Civil War was not a war on slavery.... The Union had plenty of slaves lol...
Keep making counter-arguments for arguments I never made...
Jake Gyllenhaal
07/19/10, 05:53 PM
The Civil War was not a war on slavery.... The Union had plenty of slaves lol...
Not in 1821... 40 years before the Civil War.
open mind
07/19/10, 06:06 PM
The Civil War was not a war on slavery.... The Union had plenty of slaves lol...
what was it then? please don't say states rights.
states' rights...to own slaves.
caveBEAR
07/19/10, 07:37 PM
states' rights...to own slaves.
:lol:
Machu505
07/19/10, 07:44 PM
How are they hardly comparable?
Yes, they're exactly the same. The first was a war to end the colonial status of America and to end British influence in the American market. The Civil War started because the south was collectively hotheaded on their desire to own other humans.
caveBEAR
07/19/10, 07:51 PM
Am I wrong in thinking that the Civil War wasn't primarily fought for the freedom of slaves? I know people supporting the 'Northern Oppression' idea are loons, but (I'm not very up to date on Civil War background, so I could be wrong) wasn't there a whole other list of reasons the war was fought, 'freeing the slaves' being sort of an afterthought?
GuitarR0cker1
07/19/10, 07:58 PM
Am I wrong in thinking that the Civil War wasn't primarily fought for the freedom of slaves? I know people supporting the 'Northern Oppression' idea are loons, but (I'm not very up to date on Civil War background, so I could be wrong) wasn't there a whole other list of reasons the war was fought, 'freeing the slaves' being sort of an afterthought?
Well slavery wasn't an afterthought, but it wasn't really the main issue either. The Civil War was a war of cultural, economic and political divides that had everything to do with slavery. The North and South had fundamentally different economies. They had fundamentally different politics. They were at constant odds with each other. The Civil War couldn't have happened without slavery or a system similar to it being in the South though. The slavery issue just entrenched both regions against each other and made them more polarized.
Machu505
07/19/10, 08:02 PM
I'd argue the main cause of the secession of the southern states was their perception of Lincoln being a die-hard abolitionist. The "states' rights" argument is just bullshit to distract from the southerners who, you know, owned humans.
caveBEAR
07/19/10, 08:15 PM
Well slavery wasn't an afterthought, but it wasn't really the main issue either. The Civil War was a war of cultural, economic and political divides that had everything to do with slavery. The North and South had fundamentally different economies. They had fundamentally different politics. They were at constant odds with each other. The Civil War couldn't have happened without slavery or a system similar to it being in the South though. The slavery issue just entrenched both regions against each other and made them more polarized.
Thank you. I was kind of referring to the people who say 'the North went to the South to free the slaves!', I always thought it was more the political/economic aspects of slavery than the human element that the North was worried about.
The Civil War was not a war on slavery....
In the South's mind, most assuredly. Their basis for secession was paranoia derived from losing the 1860 elections. They were convinced abolition was inevitable and, given their dependence on slave labor, knew it would be crippling economically. Who would want to reshape their economy and develop new technologies when black people are already such a great source of renewable energy?
I'm sure glad this country isn't as intellectually lazy and stupid as it was back then!
It's sad that I think I could probably draw a ton of parallels between then and today.
GuitarR0cker1
07/19/10, 08:57 PM
Thank you. I was kind of referring to the people who say 'the North went to the South to free the slaves!', I always thought it was more the political/economic aspects of slavery than the human element that the North was worried about.
Yeah boiling it down to simple statements doesn't work for civil wars.
Also the term Civil War is stupid. The Civil War should be called the Southern(or Confederate) War of Independence.
No, because a war of/for independence gives the impression it was justified.
In the South's mind, most assuredly. Their basis for secession was paranoia derived from losing the 1860 elections. They were convinced abolition was inevitable and, given their dependence on slave labor, knew it would be crippling economically. Who would want to reshape their economy and develop new technologies when black people are already such a great source of renewable energy?
I'm sure glad this country isn't as intellectually lazy and stupid as it was back then!
It's sad that I think I could probably draw a ton of parallels between then and today.
exactly what i was thinking.
Well slavery wasn't an afterthought, but it wasn't really the main issue either. The Civil War was a war of cultural, economic and political divides that had everything to do with slavery. The North and South had fundamentally different economies. They had fundamentally different politics. They were at constant odds with each other. The Civil War couldn't have happened without slavery or a system similar to it being in the South though. The slavery issue just entrenched both regions against each other and made them more polarized.
i'd agree with this. in 1860, the north and south had vastly different societies, economies, etc. the backbone of the south was built upon the institution of slavery. without it, they were not only fucked economically, but also politically. there were also social/racial issues involved. the north didn't start the war with the goal of ending slavery, but it happened during the war and also became a natural effect of the south losing.
No, because a war of/for independence gives the impression it was justified.
or that the south won, which they didn't.
repr1ze
07/20/10, 02:17 AM
Am I wrong in thinking that the Civil War wasn't primarily fought for the freedom of slaves? I know people supporting the 'Northern Oppression' idea are loons, but (I'm not very up to date on Civil War background, so I could be wrong) wasn't there a whole other list of reasons the war was fought, 'freeing the slaves' being sort of an afterthought?
Yes
repr1ze
07/20/10, 02:26 AM
Yes, they're exactly the same. The first was a war to end the colonial status of America and to end British influence in the American market. The Civil War started because the south was collectively hotheaded on their desire to own other humans.
Do you really think the driving cause of the Civil War was slavery? Replace 'British' with 'Union' and 'American' with 'Confederate'.
Do you really think the driving cause of the Civil War was slavery? Replace 'British' with 'Union' and 'American' with 'Confederate'.
slavery was a driving cause of the civil war. if there were no slavery, either ever or if it had been abolished before without incident, the civil war would not have happened.
Do you really think the driving cause of the Civil War was slavery?
What was the driving cause of the Civil War?
InTheatersNow
07/20/10, 01:03 PM
^you were.
Jake Gyllenhaal
07/20/10, 01:08 PM
Jesus Christ?
^you were.
Probably a better answer than any I was going to get from him.
IAmNietzche
07/20/10, 01:47 PM
Nope. It's black or white machumatt.
Oh hai john locke, is that you?
Unfunny joke is unfunny.
While he's spitting mostly nonsense, some of it is worth talking about. What he said to you was quite relevant.
You know better than that.
Bite your tongue!
LBJ was garbage.
Take a class on the Presidency and then get back to me on that. Your statement was so stupid that I've lost any respect I've ever had for you. Your attempt at wit was incredibly misplaced. Unless, you were trying to be serious, which in that case your ignorance is incredibly hindering your ability to contribute to this conversation.
Should be "hindering incredibly" not "incredibly hindering".
aloneatlastnj
07/20/10, 01:59 PM
Well slavery wasn't an afterthought, but it wasn't really the main issue either. The Civil War was a war of cultural, economic and political divides that had everything to do with slavery. The North and South had fundamentally different economies. They had fundamentally different politics. They were at constant odds with each other. The Civil War couldn't have happened without slavery or a system similar to it being in the South though. The slavery issue just entrenched both regions against each other and made them more polarized.
couldn't put it more eloquently or to-the-point than this. really, i think it stems alllll the way back to the decision of kentucky. without that i really don't think things would have escalated the way they did.
i know this thread has been hijacked enough, but i wish there was more discussion about someone like john brown in both US history courses in high school and collegiate surveys.
majinsharingan
07/20/10, 03:39 PM
i know this thread has been hijacked enough, but i wish there was more discussion about someone like john brown in both US history courses in high school and collegiate surveys.
There are nowadays. We covered John Brown for about two weeks in the last American History course I took.
aloneatlastnj
07/20/10, 09:09 PM
There are nowadays. We covered John Brown for about two weeks in the last American History course I took.
good to know. i've been out of college for 3 years and out of high school for double that long so i have no idea what they teach now. i didn't learn about john brown until my senior year when i took a civil war and reconstruction seminar as an elective.
Sir Comfort
07/21/10, 08:43 AM
Nobama
Jake Gyllenhaal
07/21/10, 08:53 AM
Nobama
Terrific! Haven't heard that one before. Here's some more... Obummer, Obamao, Obamination, Obama bin Lyin', Obamadinejad, Obammunist, Odumbo, Ol' Jug Ears, D'OHbama, Bacrack Obama, Barack The Magic Negro
Sir Comfort
07/21/10, 08:54 AM
Terrific! Haven't heard that one before. Here's some more... Obummer, Obamao, Obamination, Obama bin Lyin', Obamadinejad, Obammunist, Odumbo, Ol' Jug Ears, D'OHbama, Bacrack Obama, Barack The Magic Negro
or just dumbo. works either way
caveBEAR
07/21/10, 09:11 AM
Terrific! Haven't heard that one before. Here's some more... Obummer, Obamao, Obamination, Obama bin Lyin', Obamadinejad, Obammunist, Odumbo, Ol' Jug Ears, D'OHbama, Bacrack Obama, Barack The Magic Negro
:lol: Brilliant.
or just dumbo. works either way
Was it only your wit and sense of humor that stopped advancing in 3rd grade, or do you still have the body of a 9 year old as well?
hello299
07/21/10, 09:19 AM
Terrific! Haven't heard that one before. Here's some more... Obummer, Obamao, Obamination, Obama bin Lyin', Obamadinejad, Obammunist, Odumbo, Ol' Jug Ears, D'OHbama, Bacrack Obama, Barack The Magic Negro
haha I hadn't even heard of half of these.
Machu505
07/21/10, 09:21 AM
Rule #1: If a person refers to their opponents or enemies by derisive nicknames, they're not worth listening to.
majinsharingan
07/21/10, 09:24 AM
good to know. i've been out of college for 3 years and out of high school for double that long so i have no idea what they teach now. i didn't learn about john brown until my senior year when i took a civil war and reconstruction seminar as an elective.
Really? That's a shame. But yeah from what I understand they've recently changed their curriculum in the past couple years. I think John Brown was added around 2005 or 2006. Bush was still President and they were talking about how Obama could be elected in 2012 or 2016. They talked about that in the book too.
Terrific! Haven't heard that one before. Here's some more... Obummer, Obamao, Obamination, Obama bin Lyin', Obamadinejad, Obammunist, Odumbo, Ol' Jug Ears, D'OHbama, Bacrack Obama, Barack The Magic Negro
YAY.
obama has magic? HE'S A WIZARD.
repr1ze
07/22/10, 06:48 PM
What was the driving cause of the Civil War?
It was a number of things including economy, states rights etc.. The causes were basically the same as the Revolutionary war, money and power. Slavery affected the Southern economy as well as tariffs and growing size of the Federal Government, but to say that the civil war was a battle over slavery is over simplifying it.
repr1ze
07/22/10, 06:59 PM
slavery was a driving cause of the civil war. if there were no slavery, either ever or if it had been abolished before without incident, the civil war would not have happened.
That is an outrageous claim. Do you have any way of proving that?
Also I said it wasn't THE driving force. Of course it affected the war through the southern economy. Lets pretend slavery never happened. The war still would've happened due to the ideology differences (federal government power) and economic differences (south sold cotton cheaper to Europe than the U.S.)
Ulysses S Grant himself owned and supervised his own slaves. I really don't think slavery was as big an issue as people claim.
That is an outrageous claim. Do you have any way of proving that?
Also I said it wasn't THE driving force. Of course it affected the war through the southern economy. Lets pretend slavery never happened. The war still would've happened due to the ideology differences (federal government power) and economic differences (south sold cotton cheaper to Europe than the U.S.)
Ulysses S Grant himself owned and supervised his own slaves. I really don't think slavery was as big an issue as people claim.
I sure like how every issue is so black and white with you, and how you're so CLEARLY right on all of them, despite having ZERO evidence to back it up.
Jake Gyllenhaal
07/22/10, 07:21 PM
That is an outrageous claim. Do you have any way of proving that?
Also I said it wasn't THE driving force. Of course it affected the war through the southern economy. Lets pretend slavery never happened. The war still would've happened due to the ideology differences (federal government power) and economic differences (south sold cotton cheaper to Europe than the U.S.)
Ulysses S Grant himself owned and supervised his own slaves. I really don't think slavery was as big an issue as people claim.
I hate the fact that I have to debate a person with a Charlie Day avatar... but going back to the issue at hand... the southern states had to rely on slave labor for economic gain. Are you supporting this business model? Yes, the founding fathers had slaves... doesn't make it right.
open mind
07/22/10, 07:27 PM
It was a number of things including economy, states rights etc.. The causes were basically the same as the Revolutionary war, money and power. Slavery affected the Southern economy as well as tariffs and growing size of the Federal Government, but to say that the civil war was a battle over slavery is over simplifying it.
economic issue #1 at the time was slavery and state's rights issue #1 was slavery.
repr1ze
07/22/10, 09:47 PM
I sure like how every issue is so black and white with you, and how you're so CLEARLY right on all of them, despite having ZERO evidence to back it up.
Of course I think I'm right. If I thought I was wrong, then I wouldn't think that any longer... This is how opinions are formed.
I hate the fact that I have to debate a person with a Charlie Day avatar...
I have to respond to "Jake Gyllenhaal" with an Obama avatar. Mutual feelings on that one sir. Kudos to the recognition of Charlie Day though :)
but going back to the issue at hand... the southern states had to rely on slave labor for economic gain. Are you supporting this business model? Yes, the founding fathers had slaves... doesn't make it right.
I don't know know how you got my support for a slavery business model out of my post. But no, I do not support that business model. I also never stated that the founding fathers owning slaves was right. I merely stated how, when you put it in perspective, if the leaders of the Union owned apples, it is safe to assume that they weren't fighting a war to get rid of them. Or that apples weren't THE driving force for the war.
open mind
07/22/10, 11:24 PM
i don't think comparing people to apples makes any sense.
caveBEAR
07/23/10, 10:28 AM
i don't think comparing people to apples makes any sense.
He's just trying to shoehorn an 'apples to oranges' comment in there.
Chainedcircuit
07/23/10, 12:44 PM
#1 goes to Harrison because he wasn't in office long enough to fuck the world up........
He's just trying to shoehorn an 'apples to oranges' comment in there.
:lol:
You're on a roll.
That is an outrageous claim. Do you have any way of proving that?
Also I said it wasn't THE driving force. Of course it affected the war through the southern economy. Lets pretend slavery never happened. The war still would've happened due to the ideology differences (federal government power) and economic differences (south sold cotton cheaper to Europe than the U.S.)
Ulysses S Grant himself owned and supervised his own slaves. I really don't think slavery was as big an issue as people claim.
so wrong.
Scrandon
07/24/10, 11:05 AM
I don't know know how you got my support for a slavery business model out of my post. But no, I do not support that business model. I also never stated that the founding fathers owning slaves was right. I merely stated how, when you put it in perspective, if the leaders of the Union owned apples, it is safe to assume that they weren't fighting a war to get rid of them. Or that apples weren't THE driving force for the war.
Nobody said that the Civil war was a war to end slavery. We all know it wasn't.
If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.
Sounds like the North was interested in preserving the Union, no?
The issue of slavery was still THE driving force for the secession of the South and, consequently, the Civil War.
Now stop taking your history classes in such a backward state as Georgia.
repr1ze
07/26/10, 05:24 PM
so wrong.
That was a well thought out response
repr1ze
07/26/10, 05:25 PM
Nobody said that the Civil war was a war to end slavery. We all know it wasn't.
Sounds like the North was interested in preserving the Union, no?
The issue of slavery was still THE driving force for the secession of the South and, consequently, the Civil War.
Now stop taking your history classes in such a backward state as Georgia.
Of course, the north was interested in preserving the Union AT ALL COSTS. Read your Lincoln quotes again.
He's just trying to shoehorn an 'apples to oranges' comment in there.
Totally broham.
Nice to see Thomas Jefferson so high.
Of course, the north was interested in preserving the Union AT ALL COSTS. Read your Lincoln quotes again.
what are you arguing here?
GreendayIsWin2
07/30/10, 12:01 PM
George W. Bush was #1, no lie.
caveBEAR
07/30/10, 12:06 PM
George W. Bush was #1, no lie.
Is this what stupid people do for fun? Is 'bullshit posts on internet forums' the new 'four-square'?
GreendayIsWin2
07/30/10, 12:09 PM
Is this what stupid people do for fun? Is 'bullshit posts on internet forums' the new 'four-square'?
You hurt my feelings.
caveBEAR
07/30/10, 12:10 PM
You hurt my feelings.
You hurt my neurons. We'll call it a wash.
what are you arguing here?
No one knows...much less him.
Vincer17
07/30/10, 01:48 PM
http://i945.photobucket.com/albums/ad292/Vincer17/Philosoraptor-I-like-that-FDR-won-World-War-II-I-think-that-makes-him-the-best-president-ever.jpg
George W. Bush was #1, no lie.
hahahahahahaha I love satire! Oh wait, if you really meant it... that's scary.
GreendayIsWin2
07/30/10, 03:00 PM
hahahahahahaha I love satire! Oh wait, if you really meant it... that's scary.
http://www.movmnt.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/bush.jpg
How can you not love that face?
repr1ze
07/30/10, 03:49 PM
what are you arguing here?
That the north was interested in preserving the union far more than just ending slavery.
repr1ze
07/30/10, 03:57 PM
No one knows...much less him.
You use a lot of juvenile personal attacks for a smart person.
Tec Mason
07/30/10, 04:01 PM
Warren Harding was the best. he didn't do anything.
That the north was interested in preserving the union far more than just ending slavery.
Nobody's arguing the North's rationale for war. We've been discussing the South's motives, which were unequivocally rooted in the preservation of slavery.
http://www.movmnt.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/bush.jpg
How can you not love that face?hahaha okay I'll give you that one.
You use a lot of juvenile personal attacks for a smart person.
I'm complex like that.
Nobody's arguing the North's rationale for war. We've been discussing the South's motives, which were unequivocally rooted in the preservation of slavery.
This.
saysmydoctor
07/31/10, 02:01 AM
I'm not sure if this has been mentioned, but I hate Thomas Jefferson.
I'm not sure if this has been mentioned, but I hate Thomas Jefferson.
How dare you. Any 'merican who doesn't deify the founding fathers as the inspired, flawless evangelical christians they undoubtedly were is no patriot, and no friend of mine.
repr1ze
07/31/10, 04:55 PM
Nobody's arguing the North's rationale for war. We've been discussing the South's motives, which were unequivocally rooted in the preservation of slavery.
Could of sworn we were discussing the reasons the war happened, which includes both sides motives.
Could of sworn we were discussing the reasons the war happened, which includes both sides motives.
Again, nobody is debating the motives of the north. They wanted to preserve the country. That would not have been necessary had the south not seceded as a result of paranoia following the 1860 elections. You've done nothing but try to rewrite history in here and make their cause(singular) out to be more nobler than it actually was.
xshady121
07/31/10, 05:28 PM
That the north was interested in preserving the union far more than just ending slavery.
Duh, everyone knows that.
The north was also interested in preventing the vampires from taking over and enslaving humans.
Warren Harding was the best. he didn't do anything.
Ha but his friends did. Warren G. was a G...came from my hometown.
Jake Gyllenhaal
07/31/10, 06:12 PM
1plPyJdXKIY&feature=avmsc2
Chords...strings...we bringz.
repr1ze
08/01/10, 02:09 PM
Again, nobody is debating the motives of the north. They wanted to preserve the country. That would not have been necessary had the south not seceded as a result of paranoia following the 1860 elections. You've done nothing but try to rewrite history in here and make their cause(singular) out to be more nobler than it actually was.
How so?
How so?
By reclassifying their fight to keep the institution of slavery as really an issue about states rights and the size/role of the federal government.
StephenYoung
08/01/10, 05:48 PM
Obama > Reagan? I'm not American, but this is just funny.
That really isn't all that funny.
Jake Gyllenhaal
08/01/10, 06:02 PM
Obama shouldn't have appeared on that list, since he's only served 18 months.
Obama > Reagan? I'm not American, but this is just funny.
Obama will likely leave with his memory intact, which is more than I can say for Reagan. Just sayin'.
Multa Tulit
08/02/10, 12:38 PM
Obama would be better than Reagan even if he devoted the rest of his presidency to passing a law that would demand all citizens to wear their pants on their head.
Obama will likely leave with his memory intact, which is more than I can say for Reagan. Just sayin'.
Well played!
Obama will likely leave with his memory intact, which is more than I can say for Reagan. Just sayin'.
low blow?
Machu505
08/02/10, 02:02 PM
It's a rare occurrence for a Brit or a Canadian to come on here and speak accurately or intelligently about American politics.
low blow?
If you can't laugh at a dead president...
Jake Gyllenhaal
08/02/10, 03:24 PM
If you can't laugh at a dead president...
The Onion published this a week after he died (http://www.theonion.com/articles/nancy-reagan-available-at-82,9515/)
The Onion published this a week after he died (http://www.theonion.com/articles/nancy-reagan-available-at-82,9515/)
:lol:
Also...
Would.
repr1ze
08/19/10, 07:57 AM
By reclassifying their fight to keep the institution of slavery as really an issue about states rights and the size/role of the federal government.
I'm not reclassifying anything. Take a Civil War class.
Duh, everyone knows that.
The north was also interested in preventing the vampires from taking over and enslaving humans.
hahahahaha i can't believe no one else picked up on this.
I'm not reclassifying anything. Take a Civil War class.
I would be glad to take another civil war class. Unfortunately it wouldn't do anything for your argument, which is nothing more than an attempt to make noble the south's efforts to continue the institution of slavery by hiding behind states' rights.
crackedthesky
08/19/10, 05:11 PM
I wouldn't say slavery is the only reason the South had for fighting in the war. But the major one, for sure.
As far as Reagan goes, people act like the dude was God. Like you can't even say anything bad about him, or you're going to hell. It's ridiculous.
A lot of Regan's ideas did not work. But the guy had some great ideas.
For his time.
People don't seem to understand that. Pretty much every single Republican or just conservative you'll ever see on TV always resorts to the "well, Regan did this" argument. Reagan's ideas, just as pretty much anyone's ideas, aren't meant to be written in blood and set in stone. His solutions worked for the country based on what the country needed at the time. Applying those ideas now is stupid enough as it is, but applying them unquestioningly just because "zomg he was Reagan" is something beyond stupid.
It's one thing to study history, but it's another to attempt to repeat it. The fact is, Reagan isn't President anymore. The things he did back then won't work for our country as it is today, because it's an entirely different world.
Duh, everyone knows that.
The north was also interested in preventing the vampires from taking over and enslaving humans.
You were the one that said they're reading the Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter book, right? I saw it at the store yesterday and was SO close to purchasing it.
xshady121
08/19/10, 09:50 PM
hahahahaha i can't believe no one else picked up on this.
Haha thank you.
You were the one that said they're reading the Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter book, right? I saw it at the store yesterday and was SO close to purchasing it.
Do it. It's worth it.
You were the one that said they're reading the Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter book, right? I saw it at the store yesterday and was SO close to purchasing it.
it's fantastic. guarantee you'll like it.
GuitarR0cker1
08/19/10, 10:57 PM
Obama > Reagan? I'm not American, but this is just funny.
Not being American gives you all the more reason to think Obama >>>>>> Reagan. Unless you are a fan of harsh authoritarianism, which Reagan was a proud sponsor of worldwide.
StephenYoung
08/20/10, 08:44 AM
Not being American gives you all the more reason to think Obama >>>>>> Reagan. Unless you are a fan of harsh authoritarianism, which Reagan was a proud sponsor of worldwide.
I'm a capitalist first, and living in Canada I see the workings of a semi-socialist system first hand. I don't like what Obama is doing. He's just the flavor of the month, I don't understand what would put him in the great presidents of all time other than the fact that he broke the color barrier.
Theseventhson
08/20/10, 08:46 AM
I'm a capitalist first, and living in Canada I see the workings of a semi-socialist system first hand. I don't like what Obama is doing. He's just the flavor of the month, I don't understand what would put him in the great presidents of all time other than the fact that he broke the color barrier.
:-|
Jake Gyllenhaal
08/20/10, 08:56 AM
I'm a capitalist first, and living in Canada I see the workings of a semi-socialist system first hand. I don't like what Obama is doing. He's just the flavor of the month, I don't understand what would put him in the great presidents of all time other than the fact that he broke the color barrier.
Is that how he's perceived in Canada? His approval rating has here been sliding.
StephenYoung
08/20/10, 08:57 AM
Is that how he's perceived in Canada? His approval rating has here been sliding.
Well not to be discriminating, but our black kids still wear the "Obama" shirt, talk about him like he's the best thing to happen to us as Canadians, and such. And for some reason people in Quebec hated Bush extra bad (No idea why), so french people still jizz over Obama.
That, and 99% of us have no grasp on American politics.
crackedthesky
08/20/10, 11:51 AM
I'm a capitalist first, and living in Canada I see the workings of a semi-socialist system first hand. I don't like what Obama is doing. He's just the flavor of the month, I don't understand what would put him in the great presidents of all time other than the fact that he broke the color barrier.
lols
At least now I know I don't need to take anything else you say seriously.
Besides, why the hell do you care what Obama is doing? It's not like he's going to turn Canada into a socialist government.
I'm a capitalist first, and living in Canada I see the workings of a semi-socialist system first hand. I don't like what Obama is doing. He's just the flavor of the month, I don't understand what would put him in the great presidents of all time other than the fact that he broke the color barrier.
And as someone who lives in America first hand, I'm afraid I don't see the socialist makeover you think we're undergoing. He's done what exactly to destroy capitalism? If you think Reagan was good for capitalism, I'm anxious to hear this.
StephenYoung
08/20/10, 12:30 PM
lols
At least now I know I don't need to take anything else you say seriously.
Besides, why the hell do you care what Obama is doing? It's not like he's going to turn Canada into a socialist government.
Oh okay, because you know more about what's going on in Canada than the Canadian does.
I don't care, but considering the thread's topic, I put in my two cents.
crackedthesky
08/20/10, 01:00 PM
Oh okay, because you know more about what's going on in Canada than the Canadian does.
I don't care, but considering the thread's topic, I put in my two cents.
I didn't say a single thing about Canadian politics.
If you're worried that the U.S. will go quasi-socialist (and I don't know why you would be, it has no effect on your life) then you're WAY late to the game. The U.S. has been semi-socialist for... pretty much ever. Obama hasn't done anything to "increase" the "socialism."
GuitarR0cker1
08/20/10, 05:21 PM
I'm a capitalist first, and living in Canada I see the workings of a semi-socialist system first hand. I don't like what Obama is doing. He's just the flavor of the month, I don't understand what would put him in the great presidents of all time other than the fact that he broke the color barrier.
Capitalism > Human Rights? Good to know.
Hydro-Quebec, single-payer health insurance and some of the best economic policy in the world and you complain about "semi-socialism"!? I'll gladly swap countries with you.
I'm a capitalist first, and living in Canada I see the workings of a semi-socialist system first hand. I don't like what Obama is doing. He's just the flavor of the month, I don't understand what would put him in the great presidents of all time other than the fact that he broke the color barrier.
canada's not really that semi-socialist.
circasuicide
08/21/10, 12:38 PM
I didn't say a single thing about Canadian politics.
If you're worried that the U.S. will go quasi-socialist (and I don't know why you would be, it has no effect on your life) then you're WAY late to the game. The U.S. has been semi-socialist for... pretty much ever. Obama hasn't done anything to "increase" the "socialism."
explain. i don't see socialism in america, personally. and i am not anti-socialism, just for the record. i don't want this to come off as an attack.
dreamagain
08/21/10, 01:04 PM
jimmy carter is too high lol
explain. i don't see socialism in america, personally. and i am not anti-socialism, just for the record. i don't want this to come off as an attack.
Did you go to a public school? Ever been to the public library? Ever rode on public transportation? Are you familiar with social security? Medicare?
circasuicide
08/21/10, 01:58 PM
Did you go to a public school? Ever been to the public library? Ever rode on public transportation? Are you familiar with social security? Medicare?
i guess i was thinking more of the bigger socialist issues, not these types of things.
crackedthesky
08/21/10, 02:09 PM
explain. i don't see socialism in america, personally. and i am not anti-socialism, just for the record. i don't want this to come off as an attack.
This:
Did you go to a public school? Ever been to the public library? Ever rode on public transportation? Are you familiar with social security? Medicare?
i guess i was thinking more of the bigger socialist issues, not these types of things.
What "bigger" issues? Socialism isn't an issue-based form of government. It means that everybody gives some money and then the government puts that money toward society as a whole. If we were completley capitalist, you'd be able to choose one of many water or electric companies, for example. But you can't. So the systems we have in place are socialist. When you really think about it, the entire concept of taxes is also a socialist one.
I'd almost venture to say that our country is clsoer to socialism than it is to capitalism. At the very elast, it's a socialist-capitalism. As well it should be. If we went with a completely unregulated system of capitalism, we'd have all kinds of problems. Corporations would run the country, not the people.
But some people are okay with that. Hell, they're fighting for it (http://www.google.com/search?q=corporations+are+people&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1).
circasuicide
08/21/10, 02:16 PM
This:
What "bigger" issues? Socialism isn't an issue-based form of government. It means that everybody gives some money and then the government puts that money toward society as a whole. If we were completley capitalist, you'd be able to choose one of many water or electric companies, for example. But you can't. So the systems we have in place are socialist. When you really think about it, the entire concept of taxes is also a socialist one.
I'd almost venture to say that our country is clsoer to socialism than it is to capitalism. At the very elast, it's a socialist-capitalism. As well it should be. If we went with a completely unregulated system of capitalism, we'd have all kinds of problems. Corporations would run the country, not the people.
But some people are okay with that. Hell, they're fighting for it (http://www.google.com/search?q=corporations+are+people&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1).
i thought you were saying america was socialist. even though i now see that you said semi. my mistake.
vBulletin v3.6.0, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.