haha, gunfighter! I actually have to write an inspirational essay about a favorite US president. If I win this competition, I'll earn $400. I might go macho style and choose Theodore Roosevelt as my favorite. Or perhaps choose Polk.

scumbags! give me some real explanations. i dont care if the man died too fast.

You should pick someone who isn't often picked for that #1 slot if you want to win a prize. Wilson, Truman, Madison, etc

@Sbyvl ... 2WL hit it on the head. +1

Hmm.. aren't Wilson, Truman, and Madison favorites as well?

Then descend the list a little further.

Grover Cleveland.

andrew jackson?

Actually. I think what America needs is a boost of patriotism. A boost of national pride.
What president is the best to portray that can serve such a goal.

Definitely, Andrew Jackson. He's the embodiment of American political ideal, American culture, and if he were alive today, he'd be the one to revitalize our government and the people's faith in it. I can imagine no greater American hero than either Jackson or Huck Finn.

Reagan was the most patriotic President.

definitely not lincoln. i will give you guys a hint, if the media loves someone, he is probably bad. the civil war killed millions of americans and they used tactics to intentionally target civilians as a terror campaign. he took for the federal government basically dictatorial powers. and as i stated in an earlier post the media lie that he wanted to free the slaves was crap and propaganda. he banned slavery in the south for strictly tactical reasons to weaken its economy.

*if i could save the union without freeing any slave, i would do it* lincoln

but he knew that in order to weaken the south he needed to weaken their production capacity, and freeing slaves in that part of the country was the best way to do it.

And ending slavery is bad...how?

slavery would have ended without lincoln. all he cared about was making the federal government get total political control. he is responsible for killing millions of americans and civilians and then he is called the greatest president? after lincoln the federal government had massive control over the country like never before.

slavery would have ended, and it could have ended in a more reasonable way. what he did to the country cannot be excused by his freeing the slaves. even if he wanted to free them, which he actually didnt.

Because the North definitely fired on the South.

blankfag, First of all, you're not saying anything everyone doesn't already know. Secondly, you literally have no point that I can see other than to try and prove that you have some hidden knowledge about the Civil War. Again, nothing we haven't heard before. And worst of all, you don't even understand the ramifications of the quote you used. Go be stupid somewhere else, please.

Also, all of our presidents had their moments of greatness. To say any one wasn't great is pretty blasphemous.

What did Benjamin Harrison do o_O

Ugh, we're not gonna do the Lincoln tyrant conversation again.....

Grover Cleveland. A sound money man who stuck to his principles, lost an election, turned out he was right, and the electorate rewarded him with another term.

i wasnt posting that to show that i have hidden knowledge i was citing evidence as to why it is insane to call him the greatest president. if people agree on the facts then why do they think he is great?

and i take issue with the south started it theory as well. which states invaded which other states? war is a criminal act. sending troops from one place to another to wage war for political purposes is criminal. if the south invades northern states then they are committing a crime. if the north sends troops to invade the south then they are committing a crime. that is what you should think about with wars, not which country had some people fire on other people from another country. if the axis won ww2 then we would *generally know* that poland started the war with germany by killing those german soldiers. but since the allies won we know that it was staged by the nazis. it really doesnt matter, moving troops into another country is criminal, you cant justify it by these *shots fired*-type defenses.

Do you have issues with gravity too?

Dwight D. Eisenhower, I respect Eisenhower for his part in WWII and the Korean War. He also built our highway system that lasted to this day...unforunately, without much repairs. His warning about the Miltary-Industrial Complex is one of the best speeches in American History. He was a modern day Cincinnatus in my opinion.

Blankflag, your comparison is as shaky as your history.

Germany attacked a sovereign nation.

The politicians in the south didn't like the result of presidential election, so they decided to rebel. And they lose. And they were traitors. Good for all of us that we reconciled, and they weren't treated as harshly as other traitors were, but they bore arms against the legitimate government of the United States. In my mind, its no different than John Walker Lindh shooting at his countrymen in Afghanistan. Treason is treason.

@ Blankflag - I think most people on this forum recognize that Lincoln's presidency had some problems, but very few of us sympathize with the Conferacy or recognize it as a legitimate government, as you seem to be implying. And your speculation about WWII is not well taken. We do know for a fact that Germany started the war with Poland, and we do know for a fact that the Confederacy fired on the Union first.

But while you're speculating about how the world would be different if Germany had won, could you also share with us how you speculate slavery would have ended in the South if Lincoln had not forced the rebellious states back into the Union?

If a portion of a nation declares war on the government of the nation, rejects the results of an election, seizes national property, and in general breaks the social compact of the nation, then, YES, the war is their fault.

so what is the nation then? if a state declares that it owns the parks in a community then the community has no ownership of that park? it is owned by the central government? they are traitors to whom? what if any of those baltic states were trying to get independence from the ussr? are they evil and traitors too? if you own a bar and there are guys in the bar with a gun telling you what to do, you tell them to leave and they refuse so you fire on them, did you just start a war with them?

its all retarded, and its funny you all dont see it. but i guess going by my other thread i need to live with the public there is not the public i want and not challenge your bs that you believe to be true but instead try to find something you will admit is wrong.

thought experiment - since obama is cracking down on pot smokers like nobodys business, putting george bush to shame and now states are decriminalizing pot, lets think about what could happen.

scenario - federal agents go into a town to arrest a group of people for marijuana possession. they grab a bunch of people. state and local police surround them and say they cannot leave with the citizens of the town. the federal agents refuse to give them over and a gunfire is exchanged and the federal agents leave without the people they wanted to take.

in this scenario how many innocent civilians is obama justified in killing? any thoughts?

To the USSR, yeah, I'm sure those guys are traitors, etc etc. What's your point? These are massive straw man scenarios dude.

The Baltic states were forcibly annexed by the USSR. Bad comparison.

In your scenario, the state/local officers are in acting illegally, against the Federal government.

Yeah, except that that isn't happening and would never happen in America. Most of the people who are granted legal marijuana use are people who understand the laws associated with the act well enough to not cause problems like that. In fact, because you can only have a one ounce limit on the amount of marijuana you can carry at a time, the only people who benefit from legalization are people who use it very sparingly, and those who are in actual need of it as a medication.

Regardless, the Police, the Federal Agents, the fucking National Guard are almost always justified in the deaths that they are responsible for. They are trained soldiers who kill only when there is complete necessity, not retards like you who happened to buy a gun. THIS is the problem with libertarianism. A bunch of stupid assholes like to pretend that the world is a paradise for individual freedom, then get completely worked up when the government is MAINTAINING ORDER. THAT'S THE PURPOSE OF GOVERNMENT! Sorry, you're making me mad...But, do you not understand how government works? I'm legitimately not trying to insult you, but you should probably spend some more years on this planet before you try and point out any perceived social injustices.