The most evil pres in US history was LBJ

[deepthunk]

And they told the media it could be as high as 50,000 American deaths to take Iraq.

I have often noted since the beginning of the Iraq war, that the American public is never told by the news media how many Iraqi deaths there were as a direct result of the U.S. invasion. I wonder at times whether that’s because American’s simply don’t care, or if the press is afraid of loosing all that close, cozy cooperation they have with the military and the military would prefer Americans not know.
In case you’re wondering, more than 1 million Iraqi people died for the sake of bush’s ambition (approximately the same number of Jews were killed by the Nazi’s in Poland), and some of that blood is on the hands of each and every single one of us, but none more than the American press.
The fact is that war was unnecessary and we had every reason to know it at the time, but those few who tried to speak out against the war were largely ignored by the press (who even went so far as to call those who spoke out against the war traitors), or silenced all too easily by the bush administration.
The fact is, the emperor was naked, but no one had the courage to say it, and now a million people are dead. Do Americans care? Not a bit. In fact when asked how many Iraqis they think died, most American guess “a few thousand”, because we are rarely, if ever told what the true cost of that war was.
So yes its true, there were no where near 50,000 American soldiers killed in Iraq. So take pride America, your military couldn’t be any better at killing.

and Americans still ask why someone would fly a plane into a building killing 4000 Americans.

I personally wonder how many millions of people from other countries have to die before that call for blood is satiated.

 

[tinydancer]

I have often noted since the beginning of the Iraq war, that the American public is never told by the news media how many Iraqi deaths there were as a direct result of the U.S. invasion. I wonder at times whether that’s because American’s simply don’t care, or if the press is afraid of loosing all that close, cozy cooperation they have with the military and the military would prefer Americans not know.
In case you’re wondering, more than 1 million Iraqi people died for the sake of bush’s ambition (approximately the same number of Jews were killed by the Nazi’s in Poland), and some of that blood is on the hands of each and every single one of us, but none more than the American press.
The fact is that war was unnecessary and we had every reason to know it at the time, but those few who tried to speak out against the war were largely ignored by the press (who even went so far as to call those who spoke out against the war traitors), or silenced all too easily by the bush administration.
The fact is, the emperor was naked, but no one had the courage to say it, and now a million people are dead. Do Americans care? Not a bit. In fact when asked how many Iraqis they think died, most American guess “a few thousand”, because we are rarely, if ever told what the true cost of that war was.
So yes its true, there were no where near 50,000 American soldiers killed in Iraq. So take pride America, your military couldn’t be any better at killing.

and Americans still ask why someone would fly a plane into a building killing 4000 Americans.

I personally wonder how many millions of people from other countries have to die before that call for blood is satiated.

How many Libyans have to die? I ask myself that every day. When will Obama be satiated with the blood of Libyans?

 

[BlindBoo]

Wrong. Lincoln started it.

WRONG - GREEDY RACIST SLAVE OWNERS STARTED IT

Please tell me that you do know and understand that there were northern slave states?

Slavery had been a part of the human condition for centurys. In the south it was tied to the large-scale agrarian society. Not so in the north.

Slavery in the North

 

[tinydancer]

WRONG - GREEDY RACIST SLAVE OWNERS STARTED IT

Please tell me that you do know and understand that there were northern slave states?

Slavery had been a part of the human condition for centurys. In the south it was tied to the large-scale agrarian society. Not so in the north.

Slavery in the North

There were still slave owners in the North. The North is not without sin in this regard.

The slave trading out of New England is legendary.

The effects of the New England slave trade were momentous. It was one of the foundations of New England's economic structure; it created a wealthy class of slave-trading merchants, while the profits derived from this commerce stimulated cultural development and philanthropy. --Lorenzo Johnston Greene, “The Negro in Colonial New England, 1620-1776,” p.319.

The DeWolfs for example were massive slave traders. Built their fortune on slave trading. As did others. But this is really for another thread.

 

[BlindBoo]

Please tell me that you do know and understand that there were northern slave states?

Slavery had been a part of the human condition for centurys. In the south it was tied to the large-scale agrarian society. Not so in the north.

Slavery in the North

There were still slave owners in the North. The North is not without sin in this regard.

The slave trading out of New England is legendary.

The effects of the New England slave trade were momentous. It was one of the foundations of New England's economic structure; it created a wealthy class of slave-trading merchants, while the profits derived from this commerce stimulated cultural development and philanthropy. --Lorenzo Johnston Greene, “The Negro in Colonial New England, 1620-1776,” p.319.

The DeWolfs for example were massive slave traders. Built their fortune on slave trading. As did others. But this is really for another thread.

Indeed, so it was throughout the entire New World. After the Revolution and before the Civil War most New England states had abolished it.

 

[bripat9643]

I've seen official docs (ill fish for them) stating that we knew Japan was ready to surrender b4 the bomb

This is actually true, Japan had in fact offered two surrenders, the first the had numerous conditions and the second was contingent only on the emperor remaining the head of state, both were rejected out-of-hand because the U.S. would accept nothing short of unconditional surrender.
I offer no opinion on whether the decision to drop the bomb was the correct one, I only point out that the posters statement, is factual.

They weren't willing to surrender unconditionally.

End of story.

 

[AmericanFirst]

Bush crashed the world economy and ignored threats to our homeland until we got hit.

He then used that hit to lie us into a war that got tens of thousands of people killed including thousands of our bravest citizens.

What? 9-11 was clinton's fault. The economy was a result of the housing market collapse which was a dimwit problem. Bush wanted to do something about it but the idiots dodd, frank and others said there was no problem, until there was a problem. Idiot lefties.

 

[AmericanFirst]

Bush will go down in history as the worst.

The cons will keep trying to rewrite that history like they always do

Obamaturd is worse hands down than Bush.

 

[AmericanFirst]

I'd have to put my money on Lincoln for starting the "Civil" War.

Lincoln did not start the civil war. The south started it.

 

[AmericanFirst]

Bush and team crashed our economy and LIED us into war.

They did it on purpose.

it was all about money and Roves permanent majority.

That is why he is worse than all other failed presidents

Keep the lies going, everybody knows what you are about anyway, just a Bush hater. Get over him, obamaturd has out done him.

 

[AmericanFirst]

He was a dick.

I never liked him but did like some of the things that got done under him.

Bush was the worst hands down

Lincoln was the worst president in History, hands down. he killed 650,000 Americans.

No, he was one of the best. Three way tie for worst, carter, clinton, and obamaturd.

 

[bripat9643]

Indeed, so it was throughout the entire New World. After the Revolution and before the Civil War most New England states had abolished it.

Sorry, but that is a distortion. Many states didn't abolish it until the very eve of the Civil war. Many states claimed to have abolished it, but census records count slaves among the residents.

 

[BlindBoo]

Bush crashed the world economy and ignored threats to our homeland until we got hit.

He then used that hit to lie us into a war that got tens of thousands of people killed including thousands of our bravest citizens.

What? 9-11 was clinton's fault. The economy was a result of the housing market collapse which was a dimwit problem. Bush wanted to do something about it but the idiots dodd, frank and others said there was no problem, until there was a problem. Idiot lefties.

Do tell.

 

[Avatar4321]

I personally wonder how many millions of people from other countries have to die before that call for blood is satiated.

They declared war on us. It will be over when the stop trying to destroy us or when they succeed.

 

[tinydancer]

Slavery had been a part of the human condition for centurys. In the south it was tied to the large-scale agrarian society. Not so in the north.

Slavery in the North

There were still slave owners in the North. The North is not without sin in this regard.

The slave trading out of New England is legendary.

The effects of the New England slave trade were momentous. It was one of the foundations of New England's economic structure; it created a wealthy class of slave-trading merchants, while the profits derived from this commerce stimulated cultural development and philanthropy. --Lorenzo Johnston Greene, “The Negro in Colonial New England, 1620-1776,” p.319.

The DeWolfs for example were massive slave traders. Built their fortune on slave trading. As did others. But this is really for another thread.

Indeed, so it was throughout the entire New World. After the Revolution and before the Civil War most New England states had abolished it.

One day after I'm done the fall with all the canning and freezing and fishing and not sure about hunting this year, but one day in the dead of winter I'd like to participate in a non bashing non partisan truly interesting history of slavery and slave trading in North America.

I know. I'm dreaming. But what the hey, I'd like to give it a try. I really find it just so disturbing that one cannot discuss history these days without someone trying to spin it.

 

[Avatar4321]

He was a dick.

I never liked him but did like some of the things that got done under him.

Bush was the worst hands down

Lincoln was the worst president in History, hands down. he killed 650,000 Americans.

No, he was one of the best. Three way tie for worst, carter, clinton, and obamaturd.

I don't like Clinton. But I wouldnt qualify him as the worst. True if he had done his job 9/11 wouldnt have happened. But he was atleast willing to listen to the people to some degree.

Wilson pure evil. The man has the blood of millions on his hands. It was watching his administration that the Nazi's learned how to use propaganda. It was his unwillingness to let go of his League of Nations that screwed up the Versailles Treaty which directly lead to WW2 in Europe. If it wasnt for his racist governmental policies segregating the races, the desegregation movement in the fifties would have been completely unnecessary.

But perhaps I am too harsh. Perhaps his wife is more to blame. Wilson was said to be quite insane by some at the end of his second term due to his stroke with this wife making many of the calls.

We've had incompetant presidents. But Wilson is probably the only one id seriously consider evil. Maybe FDR.

Edit: Maybe LBJ too

 

[BlindBoo]

Indeed, so it was throughout the entire New World. After the Revolution and before the Civil War most New England states had abolished it.

Sorry, but that is a distortion. Many states didn't abolish it until the very eve of the Civil war. Many states claimed to have abolished it, but census records count slaves among the residents.

There is a nice chart in here that list the year it was abolish by law and the actual year it was. For instance NJ abolished it in 1804 but it didn't stop until 1865.

Slavery in the North

 

[bripat9643]

I'd have to put my money on Lincoln for starting the "Civil" War.

Lincoln did not start the civil war. The south started it.

Wrong. Lincoln started it. He refused to remove federal troops from the Territory of South Carolina and then he invaded Virginia.

 

[bripat9643]

Sorry, but that is a distortion. Many states didn't abolish it until the very eve of the Civil war. Many states claimed to have abolished it, but census records count slaves among the residents.

There is a nice chart in here that list the year it was abolish by law and the actual year it was. For instance NJ abolished it in 1804 but it didn't stop until 1865.

Slavery in the North

That chart gives those states too much credit. I've read that there were slaves in New York City as late as 1857.

 

[bripat9643]

He was a dick.

I never liked him but did like some of the things that got done under him.

Bush was the worst hands down

Lincoln was the worst president in History, hands down. he killed 650,000 Americans.

No, he was one of the best. Three way tie for worst, carter, clinton, and obamaturd.

Wrong. Lincoln was far and away the absolute worst president we had.

1. He abolished habeas corpus
2. Arrested the entire state legislature of Maryland.
3. Shut down over 300 newspapers
4. Established gulags where Americans were incarcerated without a trial
5. Arrested people merely for criticizing the government.
6. Executed American citizens without a trial.
7. Waged total war on fellow Americans.
8. murdered 50,000 non combatants
9. Sent 650,000 combatants to their deaths.
10. Destroyed private property
11. Encouraged federal troops to rape and murder American citizens.
12. Deliberately burned american cities to the ground.

Lincoln was a totalitarian dictator who was little better than Stalin, Hitler or Idi Amin.