List the 5 Presidents you most admire and the reason

[Dan Daly]

Slave
1: a person held in servitude as the chattel of another
2: one that is completely subservient to a dominating influence
3: a device (as the printer of a computer) that is directly responsive to another
4: drudge, toiler

drudge: to do hard, menial, or monotonous work
toiler: a person who is overworked... a person who toils
toil: a:struggle, battle b: laborious effort

Oh crap, I smell a Drudge debate coming

Slave
1: a person held in servitude as the chattel of another
2: one that is completely subservient to a dominating influence
3: a device (as the printer of a computer) that is directly responsive to another
4: drudge, toiler

drudge: to do hard, menial, or monotonous work
toiler: a person who is overworked... a person who toils
toil: a:struggle, battle b: laborious effort

Oh crap, I smell a Drudge debate coming

I don't know where you get this notion that I or others were "completely subservient to a dominating influence" because we were in the military though. We signed a contract, we did not give up our free choice. I could choose to disobey, just like I can choose to disobey the law as a civilian...and also must accept responsibility for the consequences of my choices in both situations.

And slaves of yore could disobey as well, no? Slavery does not mean mind control. Though I'm aware some elements of training of slaves and soldiers does include... elements of mind control.. no?

Difference is, in the military we rate due process, just like any other citizen, if we disobey (combat situations excluded of course), while a slave has no right to due process.

Crap, I hate you now for making me blow away my own arguments about the draft being slavery. I'LL GET YOU RED BARON!!!!

You are conflating my use of the term, slave, with your use of the antiquated term slave which is limited by the definition of a man held as property by contract by another man. Merely making the contract a government owned contract does not excuse the same act, no?

As for your' blowing away my argument... heh You don't rate civil due process in the military you rate military justice, which is not the same. Further, as a soldier you give up many rights afforded otherwise free men. Specifically, as a soldier amendments 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 do not apply to you.

Well first, lets get one thing straight, I am/was a Marine not a soldier. At least you didn't call me a silly sailor...in which case I'd have to skin you alive and roast you on a spit.

At the time, I agree that I felt many of my rights under those amendments were restricted, but today I don't feel that to the same degree. I could speak as freely then as we can today (indicating how much our 1st amendment rights have fallen), freely exercise my religion (indeed suffering zealots too). My right to bear arms was only infringed on base...though today those same restrictions apply to most workplaces...indicating how far our second amendment rights have fallen. My 4th amendment rights were only restricted when on military property...and again probably on par with the restrictions we suffer today everywhere. There was little or no loss of 5th and 6th amendment rights under the UCMJ, though the use of non-judicial punishment is something we don't often see in the civilian world. The 7th obviously doesn't apply under the UCMJ, but I was still able to exercise it in civilian courts had I felt the need.

The take away here is how degraded our rights as civilians have become since I served in the military....and it's freakin depressing and makes me want to shoot something.

 

[RKMBrown]

Oh crap, I smell a Drudge debate coming

And slaves of yore could disobey as well, no? Slavery does not mean mind control. Though I'm aware some elements of training of slaves and soldiers does include... elements of mind control.. no?

Difference is, in the military we rate due process, just like any other citizen, if we disobey (combat situations excluded of course), while a slave has no right to due process.

Crap, I hate you now for making me blow away my own arguments about the draft being slavery. I'LL GET YOU RED BARON!!!!

You are conflating my use of the term, slave, with your use of the antiquated term slave which is limited by the definition of a man held as property by contract by another man. Merely making the contract a government owned contract does not excuse the same act, no?

As for your' blowing away my argument... heh You don't rate civil due process in the military you rate military justice, which is not the same. Further, as a soldier you give up many rights afforded otherwise free men. Specifically, as a soldier amendments 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 do not apply to you.

A soldier willingly signs a contract.
He has the right to vote
He has access to the justice system
He is paid for his service

Hardly a slave by any definition

And many slaves willingly entered such contracts. See indentured servitude. The assumption that all slaves were forced into the agreement is not correct.

The same can be said for government enforced slavery of labor through payroll taxes. You may willingly accept your zero percent personal income tax rate, but that does not mean I willingly accept my 35% personal income tax rate.

Endentured servants were not slaves

The 4 million slaves in 1861 never signed a contract. In fact, they were prohibited from being taught to read

Your insistence on comparing taxation to slavery is an embarassment

Taxation is the modern day politically correct equivalent of slavery.

 

[longknife]

Once again, so much BS on here that the OP is long gone.

 

[Dan Daly]

I am really torn on Ike. It's like he was one of our greatest heroes and also one of our greatest disappointments.

Ike was a great political general and NOT a tactician. He was smart enough to select aides who had the sense to make good tactical plans. However, because he was a politician, he failed to take advantage of the Allies successes to take over all of Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Latvia, and so on. This resulted in the Cold War that Patton and others warned of.

His major accomplishment was pushing for the Interstate system based upon Hitler's autobahn system.

Like most wars, WWII was ended purely on a political note that Ike not only accepted but furthered.

My problem with Ike was that he was in a position to dismantle much of the BS that FDR managed during his reign, but not only didn't, but expanded upon it and made it seem as American as apple pie....much like Obama has expanded and normalized the legacy of his whiter brother Bush.

Unlike todays Republicans, Ike cared about the people

A reason he is a top president

Ike was President back when the two parties had both liberal and conservative wings...something that began to change about the time Goldwater was pretending not to want to run in 64.

 

[Pogo]

I am really torn on Ike. It's like he was one of our greatest heroes and also one of our greatest disappointments.

Ike was a great political general and NOT a tactician. He was smart enough to select aides who had the sense to make good tactical plans. However, because he was a politician, he failed to take advantage of the Allies successes to take over all of Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Latvia, and so on. This resulted in the Cold War that Patton and others warned of.

His major accomplishment was pushing for the Interstate system based upon Hitler's autobahn system.

Like most wars, WWII was ended purely on a political note that Ike not only accepted but furthered.

My problem with Ike was that he was in a position to dismantle much of the BS that FDR managed during his reign, but not only didn't, but expanded upon it and made it seem as American as apple pie....much like Obama has expanded and normalized the legacy of his whiter brother Bush.

You're flirting with tenuous ground here...

Eisenhower was a socialist dupe who positively harmed this country and decreased the freedoms we formerly enjoyed. Only a statist bootlicker would admire him.

 

[rightwinger]

Difference is, in the military we rate due process, just like any other citizen, if we disobey (combat situations excluded of course), while a slave has no right to due process.

Crap, I hate you now for making me blow away my own arguments about the draft being slavery. I'LL GET YOU RED BARON!!!!

You are conflating my use of the term, slave, with your use of the antiquated term slave which is limited by the definition of a man held as property by contract by another man. Merely making the contract a government owned contract does not excuse the same act, no?

As for your' blowing away my argument... heh You don't rate civil due process in the military you rate military justice, which is not the same. Further, as a soldier you give up many rights afforded otherwise free men. Specifically, as a soldier amendments 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 do not apply to you.

A soldier willingly signs a contract.
He has the right to vote
He has access to the justice system
He is paid for his service

Hardly a slave by any definition

And many slaves willingly entered such contracts. See indentured servitude. The assumption that all slaves were forced into the agreement is not correct.

The same can be said for government enforced slavery of labor through payroll taxes. You may willingly accept your zero percent personal income tax rate, but that does not mean I willingly accept my 35% personal income tax rate.

Endentured servants were not slaves

The 4 million slaves in 1861 never signed a contract. In fact, they were prohibited from being taught to read

Your insistence on comparing taxation to slavery is an embarassment

Taxation is the modern day politically correct equivalent of slavery.

So says the moron

 

[RKMBrown]

You are conflating my use of the term, slave, with your use of the antiquated term slave which is limited by the definition of a man held as property by contract by another man. Merely making the contract a government owned contract does not excuse the same act, no?

As for your' blowing away my argument... heh You don't rate civil due process in the military you rate military justice, which is not the same. Further, as a soldier you give up many rights afforded otherwise free men. Specifically, as a soldier amendments 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 do not apply to you.

A soldier willingly signs a contract.
He has the right to vote
He has access to the justice system
He is paid for his service

Hardly a slave by any definition

And many slaves willingly entered such contracts. See indentured servitude. The assumption that all slaves were forced into the agreement is not correct.

The same can be said for government enforced slavery of labor through payroll taxes. You may willingly accept your zero percent personal income tax rate, but that does not mean I willingly accept my 35% personal income tax rate.

Endentured servants were not slaves

The 4 million slaves in 1861 never signed a contract. In fact, they were prohibited from being taught to read

Your insistence on comparing taxation to slavery is an embarassment

Taxation is the modern day politically correct equivalent of slavery.

So says the moron

So says the moron with the 160+ IQ, who's intellectual disability is rejecting marxisim as the next great step for mankind.

 

[gipper]

You see the tyranny in FDR's imprisonment of the Japanese Americans, but fail to see that Lincoln's actions were much worse. One could conclude you think the rights of Japanese Americans are much more important than Southerns. ...

That makes absolutely no sense. Japanese Americans were not trying to destroy the country. They had not taken up arms against the country, and certainly weren't enslaving other people within the country. You are posting out of ill-considered emotion.

It makes a great deal of sense. FDR's actions were unconstitutional and tyrannical, just as was Lincoln's. FDR's tyranny may have been less murderous than Lincoln's, but it was still tyranny. Had the Japanese Americans resisted, they would most certainly have been murdered just as the Southerns were.

FDR believed the Japanese Americans were traitors so he imprisoned them. Lincoln saw Southerns the same way. Had the Japanese Americans been as numerous as the Southerns, they would have fought to prevent their imprisonment, as did the Southerns.

Lincoln invaded the South to keep it in the Union. That is clear to anyone who can think. So, he destroyed what he wanted to keep...and he did so purely for statist reasons...nothing to do with slavery.

FDR was a man of his political times. Very few Americans were willing to stand up for the rights of Japanese Americans in 1942. Congress wasn't, the Supreme Court wasn't and FDR wasn't

In retrospect, it was wrong. In 1942 anti-Japanese hystera it made sense

But doofus, you think FDR was a great leader. A great leader LEADS. He does not follow.

FDR was a fool, warmonger, liar, elitist, Stalinist stooge, disgusting statist, economic dunce, and dictatorial JACKASS.

That about sums up your beloved leader.

 

[rightwinger]

You see the tyranny in FDR's imprisonment of the Japanese Americans, but fail to see that Lincoln's actions were much worse. One could conclude you think the rights of Japanese Americans are much more important than Southerns. ...

That makes absolutely no sense. Japanese Americans were not trying to destroy the country. They had not taken up arms against the country, and certainly weren't enslaving other people within the country. You are posting out of ill-considered emotion.

It makes a great deal of sense. FDR's actions were unconstitutional and tyrannical, just as was Lincoln's. FDR's tyranny may have been less murderous than Lincoln's, but it was still tyranny. Had the Japanese Americans resisted, they would most certainly have been murdered just as the Southerns were.

FDR believed the Japanese Americans were traitors so he imprisoned them. Lincoln saw Southerns the same way. Had the Japanese Americans been as numerous as the Southerns, they would have fought to prevent their imprisonment, as did the Southerns.

Lincoln invaded the South to keep it in the Union. That is clear to anyone who can think. So, he destroyed what he wanted to keep...and he did so purely for statist reasons...nothing to do with slavery.

FDR was a man of his political times. Very few Americans were willing to stand up for the rights of Japanese Americans in 1942. Congress wasn't, the Supreme Court wasn't and FDR wasn't

In retrospect, it was wrong. In 1942 anti-Japanese hystera it made sense

But doofus, you think FDR was a great leader. A great leader LEADS. He does not follow.

FDR was a fool, warmonger, liar, elitist, Stalinist stooge, disgusting statist, economic dunce, and dictatorial JACKASS.

That about sums up your beloved leader.

All while being the greatest modern president

FDR made us an economic and military superpower

 

[gipper]

Difference is, in the military we rate due process, just like any other citizen, if we disobey (combat situations excluded of course), while a slave has no right to due process.

Crap, I hate you now for making me blow away my own arguments about the draft being slavery. I'LL GET YOU RED BARON!!!!

You are conflating my use of the term, slave, with your use of the antiquated term slave which is limited by the definition of a man held as property by contract by another man. Merely making the contract a government owned contract does not excuse the same act, no?

As for your' blowing away my argument... heh You don't rate civil due process in the military you rate military justice, which is not the same. Further, as a soldier you give up many rights afforded otherwise free men. Specifically, as a soldier amendments 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 do not apply to you.

A soldier willingly signs a contract.
He has the right to vote
He has access to the justice system
He is paid for his service

Hardly a slave by any definition

And many slaves willingly entered such contracts. See indentured servitude. The assumption that all slaves were forced into the agreement is not correct.

The same can be said for government enforced slavery of labor through payroll taxes. You may willingly accept your zero percent personal income tax rate, but that does not mean I willingly accept my 35% personal income tax rate.

Endentured servants were not slaves

The 4 million slaves in 1861 never signed a contract. In fact, they were prohibited from being taught to read

Your insistence on comparing taxation to slavery is an embarassment

Taxation is the modern day politically correct equivalent of slavery.

That and inflation, which is purposely and insidiously imposed on us by our government and the Fed.

 

[norwegen]

You see the tyranny in FDR's imprisonment of the Japanese Americans, but fail to see that Lincoln's actions were much worse. One could conclude you think the rights of Japanese Americans are much more important than Southerns. ...

That makes absolutely no sense. Japanese Americans were not trying to destroy the country. They had not taken up arms against the country, and certainly weren't enslaving other people within the country. You are posting out of ill-considered emotion.

It makes a great deal of sense. FDR's actions were unconstitutional and tyrannical, just as was Lincoln's. FDR's tyranny may have been less murderous than Lincoln's, but it was still tyranny. Had the Japanese Americans resisted, they would most certainly have been murdered just as the Southerns were.

FDR believed the Japanese Americans were traitors so he imprisoned them. Lincoln saw Southerns the same way. Had the Japanese Americans been as numerous as the Southerns, they would have fought to prevent their imprisonment, as did the Southerns.

Lincoln invaded the South to keep it in the Union. That is clear to anyone who can think. So, he destroyed what he wanted to keep...and he did so purely for statist reasons...nothing to do with slavery.

FDR was a man of his political times. Very few Americans were willing to stand up for the rights of Japanese Americans in 1942. Congress wasn't, the Supreme Court wasn't and FDR wasn't

In retrospect, it was wrong. In 1942 anti-Japanese hystera it made sense

But doofus, you think FDR was a great leader. A great leader LEADS. He does not follow.

FDR was a fool, warmonger, liar, elitist, Stalinist stooge, disgusting statist, economic dunce, and dictatorial JACKASS.

That about sums up your beloved leader.

All while being the greatest modern president

FDR made us an economic and military superpower

Not so. The United States was a world power long before FDR, and would have become a superpower regardless.

 

[rightwinger]

That makes absolutely no sense. Japanese Americans were not trying to destroy the country. They had not taken up arms against the country, and certainly weren't enslaving other people within the country. You are posting out of ill-considered emotion.

It makes a great deal of sense. FDR's actions were unconstitutional and tyrannical, just as was Lincoln's. FDR's tyranny may have been less murderous than Lincoln's, but it was still tyranny. Had the Japanese Americans resisted, they would most certainly have been murdered just as the Southerns were.

FDR believed the Japanese Americans were traitors so he imprisoned them. Lincoln saw Southerns the same way. Had the Japanese Americans been as numerous as the Southerns, they would have fought to prevent their imprisonment, as did the Southerns.

Lincoln invaded the South to keep it in the Union. That is clear to anyone who can think. So, he destroyed what he wanted to keep...and he did so purely for statist reasons...nothing to do with slavery.

FDR was a man of his political times. Very few Americans were willing to stand up for the rights of Japanese Americans in 1942. Congress wasn't, the Supreme Court wasn't and FDR wasn't

In retrospect, it was wrong. In 1942 anti-Japanese hystera it made sense

But doofus, you think FDR was a great leader. A great leader LEADS. He does not follow.

FDR was a fool, warmonger, liar, elitist, Stalinist stooge, disgusting statist, economic dunce, and dictatorial JACKASS.

That about sums up your beloved leader.

All while being the greatest modern president

FDR made us an economic and military superpower

Not so. The United States was a world power long before FDR, and would have become a superpower regardless.

Not a super power
We had maybe the fifth largest military before FDR and an economy in depression

 

[gipper]

Sometimes I wish I could be a delusional liberal Democrat like you.

Everything is candy canes and lollipops...its all peaches and cream....everything is WONDERFUL under the great leadership of Obama....it is so much easier...just believe whatever the government and it's media tell me....

.....but then....

I THINK....

unlike you.

 

[rightwinger]

Sometimes I wish I could be a delusional liberal Democrat like you.

Everything is candy canes and lollipops...its all peaches and cream....everything is WONDERFUL under the great leadership of Obama....it is so much easier...just believe whatever the government and it's media tell me....

.....but then....

I THINK....

unlike you.

Care for a cookie?

 

[Unkotare]

Last I saw, Texas has two Senators and a shitload of Congressmen all elected by voters in Texas. So yes, you geta say in what taxes are assessed. That is not socialism...it is democracy at its best

Yeah we'll we were supposed to be a republic... not a democracy.

A Republic is an implementation of Democracy

That's like saying tyranny is an implementation of liberty.

Actually it isn't

Try again

Democracy in the form we are currently employing, due to the destruction of the power the republic previously held, is tyranny of the majority over smaller groups, such as states that prefer liberty over marxism. A republic is the opposite of democracy. ....

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Unkotare]

It makes a great deal of sense. ...

You are comparing dissimilar things; therefore, it makes no sense.

More of the "i think they are dissimilar, so I am right and you are wrong" ...

I have told you how they are dissimilar. Pay attention, kid.

 

[Unkotare]

The analogies are united by the notion of keeping a union together by force and violence. ...

Your analogy fails because you are trying to compare unlike things. How many times do you need this explained to you, kid?

So you dispute that in all cases a union is held together by force and violence? ...

I dispute that the personal relationship choices of one man and one woman are in any serious way analogous to a nation of over 30 million people wrestling with the principles of federalism and fundamental human rights. Got it now, kid?

another unrelated strawman... a union of people is a union of people......

You clearly don't know what "strawman" [sic] means. I have explained to you several times now how and why your analogy fails to hold up.

 

[Thunderbird]

Wilson: Gave us a modern monetary system, Brought us through WWI and helped broker the peace

Only a real dunce could admire Wilson.

The Federal Reserve Bank Caused The Great Depression

Wilson's War: How Woodrow Wilson's Great Blunder Led to Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, and World War II

 

[Thunderbird]

More on Lincoln:

Lincoln’s Greatest Failure
(Or, How a Real Statesman Would Have Ended Slavery)

 

[RKMBrown]

Yeah we'll we were supposed to be a republic... not a democracy.

A Republic is an implementation of Democracy

That's like saying tyranny is an implementation of liberty.

Actually it isn't

Try again

Democracy in the form we are currently employing, due to the destruction of the power the republic previously held, is tyranny of the majority over smaller groups, such as states that prefer liberty over marxism. A republic is the opposite of democracy. ....

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

Just keep telling yourself that.