Tao of personal leadership

[Avatar4321]

I just started reading the Tao of Personal Leadership. figured it would look interesting. So i open the book this morning and I almost through the book down cause the dedication was so unbelievable. It said:

"To President Jimmy Carter, whose vision, courage, and integrity have transformed problems into possibilities, and conflict into Cooperation."

I was just totally floored by this. I mean what person in their sanity would think Jimmy Carter was a good leader. I mean we are talking about possibly the Worst President in American history here. A man who took us into double digit inflation high unemployment. Caused the problems we currently have with Iran and indirectly Iraq since the fall of the Shah was what motivated Saddam to take control of Iraq. This is a man who bribed the North Koreans with nuclear power to stop developing nuclear weapons (one of the dumbest ideas known to man) and a man who is good buddies with Castro in Cuba. This is the man that this book of leadership is encouraged to.

Its sad I was hoping and still hoping that this book would be good but already im like seriously disappointed.

 

[Adam's Apple]

And don't forget that it was Jimmy Carter who was responsible for causing America to lose control of the Panama Canal, which is vital to the security of our country. Guess who operates the Canal now and is in total control of what ships can and cannot pass through? COMMUNIST CHINA!

 

[DKSuddeth]

Jimmy Carter was nowhere near the worst president in american history. There are many before him that are indeed highly qualified candidates for that auspicious title.

 

[Adam's Apple]

There have been a few bad apples in the bunch, that's for sure. Who would your top five be?

 

[DKSuddeth]

depends upon how you're grading them but overall I'd list it like this: top 5 worst presidents.

5) Bill Clinton
4) Richard Nixon
3) Woodrow Wilson
2) FDR
1) Abraham Lincoln

 

[musicman]

Don't forget LBJ.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by musicman
Don't forget LBJ.

LBJ is one of the next 5, I didn't forget him.

 

[Adam's Apple]

Wow! FDR and Abraham Lincoln are quite a shock. Both of them would be in my top five U.S. presidents. Why do you think they were bad presidents?

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by Adam's Apple
Wow! FDR and Abraham Lincoln are quite a shock. Both of them would be in my top five U.S. presidents. Why do you think they were bad presidents?

HUGE, and I mean HUGE , civil liberties violations as well as going WAY outside the constitution.

Lincoln for arresting people for criticizing the civil war to maintain the union and FDR for the japanese-american internment

 

[HGROKIT]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
HUGE, and I mean HUGE , civil liberties violations as well as going WAY outside the constitution.

Lincoln for arresting people for criticizing the civil war to maintain the union and FDR for the japanese-american internment

I agree with you on the interment - bad, bad , bad

Whatever Lincoln had to do to preserve the Union I think was justified. You site civil liberties violations - but me thinks the entire point of the civil war was to free the slaves and preserve the Union?

 

[Annie]

John Adams, while wonderful as a Founder/Framer, sucked as politician.

Martin van Buren-no leadership. Serious economic problems.

Jimmy Carter-Probably the worst of the bunch. Failure to recognize enemies. Weakness in the face of emerging terrorism.

Ulysses S. Grant-Great general. That was it. Used by hangers on, but to clueless to know.

Herbert Hoover-Should be amongst the giants, but wrong man in wrong time. Every quality needed for presidency in 'normal times' but wrong for the bottom dropping out.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by HGROKIT
I agree with you on the interment - bad, bad , bad

Whatever Lincoln had to do to preserve the Union I think was justified. You site civil liberties violations - but me thinks the entire point of the civil war was to free the slaves and preserve the Union?

The Civil War wasn’t about slavery; it was about preserving the Union. It wasn’t about the Constitution and it wasn’t about freedom. And I’m not sure it was worth killing half a million people to keep the country intact just because some wanted to leave. Keep in mind that the South was not a foreign invader.

There’s still nothing in the Constitution that says states can’t leave.
The issue of slavery may have helped bring on secession, but it wasn’t the reason for the war.

From 'Bartlett’s Familiar Quotations': “In a letter to Horace Greeley, editor of the New York Tribune, Lincoln wrote: “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. 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.”


The Emancipation Proclamation only freed the slaves in those states under control of the Confederacy. It did not free any of the slaves in the border states where the slaves were owned by Union sympathizers.

The Writ of Habeas Corpus and the Bill of Rights were suspended. He summarily imprisoned critics and even had an arrest warrant written to jail the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Roger Taney, because he not only ruled that many of Lincoln’s actions were unconstitutional, he was also a vocal Lincoln critic.

 

[HGROKIT]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
The Civil War wasn’t about slavery; it was about preserving the Union. It wasn’t about the Constitution and it wasn’t about freedom. And I’m not sure it was worth killing half a million people to keep the country intact just because some wanted to leave. Keep in mind that the South was not a foreign invader.

There’s still nothing in the Constitution that says states can’t leave.
The issue of slavery may have helped bring on secession, but it wasn’t the reason for the war.

From 'Bartlett’s Familiar Quotations': “In a letter to Horace Greeley, editor of the New York Tribune, Lincoln wrote: “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. 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.”


The Emancipation Proclamation only freed the slaves in those states under control of the Confederacy. It did not free any of the slaves in the border states where the slaves were owned by Union sympathizers.

The Writ of Habeas Corpus and the Bill of Rights were suspended. He summarily imprisoned critics and even had an arrest warrant written to jail the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Roger Taney, because he not only ruled that many of Lincoln’s actions were unconstitutional, he was also a vocal Lincoln critic.

hmmmm - thanks for the lesson, I'll have to get back to you on that one.

 

[proud_savagette]

your point being? Lincoln did what he had to. And just because the constitution didn't say anything about them not being able to secede, it didn't say they could, either. Lincoln was trying to hold the whole country together, and the only way he could do so was by not forbidding slavery for as long as he could in hopes that he could get the south back. However, he made his move at the most opportune time. bill clinton should be number 1 on your list. what president besides him was messing around having sex when he should have been working? And the touching scene of him leaving a church, laughing, and then you can see him turn and see a camera, and the smile disappears as he pretends to wipe a tear away...man, that was classic.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by proud_savagette
your point being? Lincoln did what he had to. And just because the constitution didn't say anything about them not being able to secede, it didn't say they could, either.

This is not true. The constitution provides the limits for federal government, all others are reserved for the states. Since secession is not forbidden by the constitution it then becomes the states right to choose or not.

Lincoln was trying to hold the whole country together, and the only way he could do so was by not forbidding slavery for as long as he could in hopes that he could get the south back. However, he made his move at the most opportune time.

And in doing so, worked almost completely out of the framework of the constitution. If you're going to use the 'ends justifying the means' argument, why have a constitution at all? Why don't we go ahead and change our government to an elected monarchy?

bill clinton should be number 1 on your list. what president besides him was messing around having sex when he should have been working? And the touching scene of him leaving a church, laughing, and then you can see him turn and see a camera, and the smile disappears as he pretends to wipe a tear away...man, that was classic.

clinton is certainly in the top 10 of the worst list, however, while he abused the office of POTUS with sexual dalliances I have yet to see where he flagrantly violated the constitution.

So far you're arguing that its ok to violate the constitution to do what YOU think is necessary, much like a dictator would violate to ensure HIS policy, yet you would crucify someone for adultery and lying to the public (yes they are violations but not of the constitution). Where do your loyalties to the constitution begin and end?

 

[Adam's Apple]

Regarding Clinton's adultery and lying, he also obstructed justice, for which he should have lost his law license for good. The people in his administration took money from the Chinese to help finance a presidential election--which I believe is a Constitutional no-no. Clinton should have been impeached, but the Democrats refused to even look at the evidence against him.

I have read lots of books about Abraham Lincoln and have never come across the civil rights violations you cite. Living in a representative democracy, as we do, does not mean that we live in a perfect society. Sometimes civil rights will be trumped to bring about a greater good. Lincoln did what he had to do to free the slaves and to keep the country together at a great personal price. I know he had a great love for his country and for his fellow man, and that he had the moral courage to do what had to be done. To me, he was the right man for the job at the time.

 

[DKSuddeth]

The history is there, it's irrefutable.

As for the rest.......well if you think that suspending civil rights and violating the constitution for the greater good is something thats necessary, then you have no cause to complain about any other country or leaders that do the same. Cuba, North Korea, Iran....all of them are simply doing the same.

It's all a simple matter of you get the government you deserve.

 

[proud_savagette]

So far you're arguing that its ok to violate the constitution to do what YOU think is necessary, much like a dictator would violate to ensure HIS policy, yet you would crucify someone for adultery and lying to the public (yes they are violations but not of the constitution). Where do your loyalties to the constitution begin and end?

I am not saying that at all. And perhaps you need to take a closer look at the Constitution. And if you are so upset about how Lincoln really didn't have an opinion toward slaves when he started the war, perhaps if you take a closer look then at why the war was necessary in the first place and what it accomplished, you might come to some epiphany.
And by the way, on october 4, 1854, at the age of forty-five, Lincoln made a speech denouncing slavery in public. He declared that he hated the current zeal for the spread of slavery: "i hat it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery istself." Then in peoria,he said, "The great mass of mankind consider slavery a great moral wrong. [this feeling] lies at the very foundation of their sense of justice, and it cannot be trifled with...No statesman can safely disregard it."
In his first inaugural address, he uses the Constitution as an example of why the South may not secede legally. "I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Contstitution the union of these states is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our national Constitution, and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself. Again, If the United States be not a government proper, but an association of states in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it--break it, so to speak--but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?
.....It follows from these views that no state upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any state or states against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances." And then of course, the south shot at them.
But also, he makes an excellent point later on in this speech: "All profess to be content in the Union if all constitutional rights can be maintatined. Is it true, then, that any right plainly written in the Constitution has been denied? I think not....shall fugitives from labor be surrendered by national or by state authority? The Constitution does not expressly say. May Congress prohibit slavery in the territories? The Constitution does not expressly say. Must Congress protect slavery in the territories? The Constitution does not expressly say....If the minority will not acquiesce, the majority must, or the government must cease There is no other alternative, for continuing the government is acquiescence on one side or the other. If a minority in such case will secede rather than acquiesce, they make a precedent which in turn will divide and ruin them, for a minority of their own will divide and ruin them whenever a majority refuses to be controlled by such a minority. do you see where he's getting at with this? We'd have like a trillion different countries if you could just secede whenever you wanted to.
Also, when it comes to endorsing souther secession it is not enough to point out Lincoln's failures in his position on slavery. MOre important is whether one group may leave a larger group that it had been part of--and in the process take along unwilling third parties. The seceding group definitely does not have that right. The right of peaceful exit from a contract may not be given to those wanting to leave who intend to take along hostages.
Seceding from the American union could perhaps be morally unobjectionable, if you choose to see it that way. It isn't that significant whether it is legally objectionable because, after all, slavery itself was legally unobjectionable, but something still had to be done about it. So when one considers that the citizens of the union who intended to go their own way were, in effect, kidnapping millions of people--most of whom would rather have stayed with the union that held out some hope for their eventual liberation--the idea of secession no longer seems innocent. And regardless of Lincoln's motives, when slavery is factored in, it is doubtful that one can justify secession by the southern states.

 

[proud_savagette]

Lincoln for arresting people for criticizing the civil war to maintain the union

to put it into context, if you went walking around declaring that radical islam had every right to destroy the two towers and kill all those innocent people, saying it wasn't illegal and all that kinda crap, i would arrest you for slander.
And if you are referring to Vallandigham, with the whole Lincoln arresting people for criticizing the civil war, he said that "the men in power are attempting to establish a despotism in this country, more cruel and more oppressive than ever existed before."
Hmm.. well, let's take a look at the definition of slander, shall we?
slander: 1. the utterance in the presence of another person of a false statement or statements, damaging to a third person's character or reputation: usually distinguished from libel which is written. 2. such a spoken statement.
um, yep, definitely slander.
And then we get to the good stuff. What's the definition of treason? hmm..
treason: 1. betrayal of trust or faith; treachery 2. violation of the allegiance owed to one's sovereign or state; betrayal of one's country, specif., in the U.S., consisting only in levying war against the U.S. or in giving aid and comfort to its enemies. Well, what did this man do, eh? He was charged with encouraging desertions from the Union army. "must I shoot a simpleminded soldier boy who deserts," LIncoln asked, "while I must not touch a hair of a wily agitator who induces him to desert?" Well, i certainly consider such behavior to be aiding the enemy. He was also charged with publicly expressing sympathies for those in arms against the Government of the United States, declaring disloyal sentiments and opinions, with the object and purpose of weakening the power of the Government in its effort to suppress the unlawful rebellion. yep, sounds like treason to me.

 

[DKSuddeth]

all that you've wrote, in regards to lincoln and his interpretation of the constitution, is wrong. The federal government is limited via the constitution in what authority it has. Everything else is reserved to the states.

with the arrests also, lincoln used an interpretation that was illegal according to the constitution.

Everything you have down is in support of constitutional violations so why should we have one?