• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

who do U think is the best president ever

-Demosthenes- said:
Some network had their own show (abc or something like that) about the "Greatest American". It was voted on by the public on the internet, and the list was full of current celebrities and famous people, as well as actual great Americans. I believe the top 5 were presidents, something like: Washington, Jeffereson, Lincoln, Reagon, and someone else. It was voted, and I think Reagan actually won, which I found disturbing. It was obviously a partison pick, with little or no retrospect to base their vote on, not that in another 20 years historian may decide that he was very important, but again, they may not. The point is, we can't really look at people in the last 20 or 30 years, there just isn't enough benefit of restrospect.

I think the other one was Martin Luther King Jr. You are right about the benefit of retrospect. I couldn't believe that Reagan won either.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
I think the other one was Martin Luther King Jr.

Yeah I agree with you there. Also Rosa Parks should be on the list.
 
I've got to pick Washington for turning down absolute power twice, and then walking away after two terms. That took great moral fiber.
 
Vandeervecken said:
I've got to pick Washington for turning down absolute power twice, and then walking away after two terms. That took great moral fiber.

Yeah I guess so, but I hold something against him and all other slave owning presidents because they claimed all men are created equal but then owned people in which they considered were inferior
 
Che said:
Yeah I guess so, but I hold something against him and all other slave owning presidents because they claimed all men are created equal but then owned people in which they considered were inferior
The circumstances are extremely odd, to say the least. Washington and Jefferson were both early politicians from Virginia (from the "Virginia Dynasty"). These politicians all had slaves, but all wrote about and actively supported the gradual emancipation of the slaves. It is an incredibly complex stance, that involved rationalization for current slave owning, but plans to end slavery in the future.
 
-Demosthenes- said:
The circumstances are extremely odd, to say the least. Washington and Jefferson were both early politicians from Virginia (from the "Virginia Dynasty"). These politicians all had slaves, but all wrote about and actively supported the gradual emancipation of the slaves. It is an incredibly complex stance, that involved rationalization for current slave owning, but plans to end slavery in the future.

Well I'm going to tell you to not do drugs and become a major anti-drug activist but then do them myself. However I am going to support a gradual illegalization of the drugs. Kinda the same as Washington, wouldn't you say?

The thing that many historians have thought was that the Founding Fathers wrote "All men are created equal" for white land owners.
 
Che said:
Yeah I guess so, but I hold something against him and all other slave owning presidents because they claimed all men are created equal but then owned people in which they considered were inferior


They simply did not believe that African's were human. A huge and glaring fault in a man I agree, but less relevance relating to his presidency.
 
Vandeervecken said:
They simply did not believe that African's were human. A huge and glaring fault in a man I agree, but less relevance relating to his presidency.

Yeah, but also they wrote the phrase only thinking short sightedly because they were outraged at their taxation without representation.
 
Che said:
Yeah, but also they wrote the phrase only thinking short sightedly because they were outraged at their taxation without representation.

That was only one of the reasons they were pissed, instead of reading Marx I suggest you brush up on your Jefferson and your Locke, if you want to understand human liberty and not just the tennants for statist tyranny:

THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE said:
Here is the complete text of the Declaration of Independence. The original spelling and capitalization has been retained.

(Adopted by Congress on July 4, 1776)

The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.

He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.

He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature.

He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states:

For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing taxes on us without our consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury:

For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses:

For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule in these colonies:

For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments:

For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow citizens taken captive on the high seas to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have we been wanting in attention to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.

We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

New Hampshire: Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

Massachusetts: John Hancock, Samual Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island: Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

Connecticut: Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

New York: William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

New Jersey: Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

Pennsylvania: Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

Delaware: Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

Maryland: Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia: George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

North Carolina: William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

South Carolina: Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton

And here's a link to some Locke:

http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/locke/locke1/contents1.html
 
Last edited:
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
That was only one of the reasons they were pissed, instead of reading Marx I suggest you brush up on your Jefferson and your Locke, if you want to understand human liberty and not just the tennants for statist tyranny:
Trojan, you should understand that posting a document that just declares one nation rid of the imperialism of another, doesn't mean it works for all. Also not to mention that your past notions that freedom can only exist under capitalism I find wrong. There is no equality without freedom, there is no freedom without equality. Now equality hardly exists in a capitalist system, and I find freedom tends to be given more to one set group than to another. Also the Declaration of Independance can be applied only to US history, Marxism can be applied to all, as its also a way of understanding history through materialist dialectics and historical materialism. Also if your so concerned about freedom, I find that it would be contradictory of your again past notions that Iraq should have been invaded, and found itself on the leash of the US military. Also if you say to free Iraq from Saddam, why don't we let matters into their hands?

And as again, Marxism, Socialism, and Communism, are not Statist ideologies.
 
Comrade Brian said:
Trojan, you should understand that posting a document that just declares one nation rid of the imperialism of another, doesn't mean it works for all. Also not to mention that your past notions that freedom can only exist under capitalism I find wrong. There is no equality without freedom, there is no freedom without equality. Now equality hardly exists in a capitalist system, and I find freedom tends to be given more to one set group than to another. Also the Declaration of Independance can be applied only to US history, Marxism can be applied to all, as its also a way of understanding history through materialist dialectics and historical materialism. Also if your so concerned about freedom, I find that it would be contradictory of your again past notions that Iraq should have been invaded, and found itself on the leash of the US military. Also if you say to free Iraq from Saddam, why don't we let matters into their hands?

And as again, Marxism, Socialism, and Communism, are not Statist ideologies.


This is not about one nation this is about all of humanity and the natural rights and natural law guaranteed to ALL men under that law . . . you really ought to read some Locke:

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

John Locke argued for the preservation of the fundamental natural rights of life, liberty, and property, something a Communist would have no concept of.
 
Last edited:
Trojan, the reason why I can't really accept some of his works is because, they often revolve around religous superstition.
John Locke argued for the preservation of the fundamental natural rights of life, liberty, and property, something a Communist would have no concept of.
Life, Liberty I quite agree with, but private property would be negative, unless it was immediate-needed property.

Also these views are highly utopian, and cannot be achieved by saying you did it, they are best achieved by scientific means of thinking.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
This is not about one nation this is about all of humanity and the natural rights and natural law guaranteed to ALL men under that law . . . you really ought to read some Locke:

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

John Locke argued for the preservation of the fundamental natural rights of life, liberty, and property, something a Communist would have no concept of.

Nice flip-flop! We had discussed rights earlier in another thread and you said that there were no such thing as natural rights. Now you are quoting a man who believed in them. You do read a lot but regurgitating quotes without understanding what they mean and being consistent in what you believe makes it all for naught. Try cutting and pasting from your own brain:lol:
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
Nice flip-flop! We had discussed rights earlier in another thread and you said that there were no such thing as natural rights. Now you are quoting a man who believed in them. You do read a lot but regurgitating quotes without understanding what they mean and being consistent in what you believe makes it all for naught. Try cutting and pasting from your own brain:lol:

That's bullshit I never argued any such thing, in what thread where???
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

.... except for Blacks, Women and Non-Catholics Until the 20th century....
 
Comrade Brian said:
Trojan, the reason why I can't really accept some of his works is because, they often revolve around religous superstition.

Life, Liberty I quite agree with, but private property would be negative, unless it was immediate-needed property.

Also these views are highly utopian, and cannot be achieved by saying you did it, they are best achieved by scientific means of thinking.

It is based on absolute morality not religios superstition.

Property is a fundamental human value to be secure in your own property makes each man his own king and gives the insentive to work hard to achieve that end, instead of reducing everyone to the lowest common denominator like in the Communist systems.

And the best way to achieve those ends is lay a nation firmly upon the base of these natural rights like the U.S. and the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
 
I retract my previous choices for greatest president(s) ever.

Clearly, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran is the best president ever.
 
Che said:
.... except for Blacks, Women and Non-Catholics Until the 20th century....

First off the Founding Father's were made up of alot of different religions Catholic not being one of them.

Jeffereson wanted to put an end to slavery in the Delclaration of Independene, but it got edited out.

We fought a war to end slavery and women now have their rights.

At the time the Declaration was written their was nothing of any comparative tennants to be found anywhere else in the world, we were the most free nation at the time and still are, not to mention the fact that half of the world today still has religious, sexual, and racial discrimination.
 
It is based on absolute morality not religios superstition.
Morals are different to everyone, so there is no such thing as "absolute morality, its different to all. Also what you posted mentioned supernatural things a lot, so it is religous superstition.
Property is a fundamental human value
Private property has not always existed with humans, it has been around in some form or another for a long time, but only really became important under capitalism.
instead of reducing everyone to the lowest common denominator like in the Communist systems
A common myth.
You do read a lot but regurgitating quotes without understanding what they mean
I know once he pasted the Declaration of Independance, and said it proved Marx was wrong. I don't understand that.
.... except for Blacks, Women and Non-Catholics Until the 20th century....
And by then corporations took over the country.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
That's bullshit I never argued any such thing, in what thread where???

I am searching for it. It was where you were acting like my teacher and "quizzing" me about where rights come from.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
That wasn't me.

I apologize if it wasn't. I will find out who it was.
 
Che said:
.... except for Blacks, Women and Non-Catholics Until the 20th century....
I think he meant non-Christian or more likely non-Protestant (I hope).

Catholics were heavily discriminated against, especially during the Nativist bouts through the 19th and 20th centuries. The Irish were discriminated against largely because most of them were Catholic. The point is, non-Catholics were not discriminated against because they were not Catholic in early or later American history, that's for sure.
 
Sorry, trajan, I had you mistaken for RightatNYU.:lol:
 
FDR no doubt, he turned this country around with extreme reforms, took us from a country in depression into a world superpower, he is an essential, without him, we would probably not be the world superpower right now, Nazis would've have most likely taken over all of western europe and russia, the axis would've taken over the world, then Germany would turn on Japan because of their supremacy idea.... blacks and asians could be extinct if not for FDR..
 
Back
Top Bottom