I'd say Nathan Bedford Forrest deserves the slot more than Jefferson Davis does.

@ obiwanobiwan: What about my other choice?

@ obiwan

"Really? Income Tax Reform...that's worthy of the word "sinister?" O.o"

The federal income tax opened the door to big government. "But we need big government!". Oh, spare me. We won no fewer than four major wars, established ourselves as a world power, had world-class hospitals, schools, and transportation all *before* the 16th Amendment.

"And explain what's so bad about the direct election of Senators."

Because it makes the Senate and the states more or less irrelevant, and it creates an awkward situation in which the voters of small states are more valuable than voters in big states. The Senate was originally intended to be the house of the States, not the house of the people (that's the House of Representatives). If Senators are supposed to be representatives of their respective state governments (as originally intended), then shouldn't they be chosen by their state governments? Furthermore, it would re-introduce the possibility of simply recalling bad Senators instead of trying to impeach them. If you have a Senator who is not acting according to the wishes of his/her state government, you can remove him/her for that alone, instead of having to find criminal wrongdoing, as with an impeachment process. Finally, it would make state politics a lot more relevant to the big picture, which is a good thing. We're 50 semi-sovereign states, not one nation. We should really only unite as a nation during war or national emergency.

"So...not the Japanese-American internment camps...screw all those harmed THERE..."

"Harmed"? Ha. Japanese nationals and Japanese-Americans had to spend >4 years in the desert. The nice, safe, isolated, well-fed, mildly uncomfortable desert. Say what you want about the legality/Constitutionality of the Japanese Internment, but don't try to paint it as some sort of crime/atrocity. A Japanese internment camp would have been one of the safest places *in the entire world* in which one could have spent World War Two. No Japanese internment camps were bombed, invaded, nuked, pillaged, or starved out.

"Tax reform, gun regulations, and direct election of Senators."

I don't dwell on the past too much. Do I care about President Jackson's actions against Native Americans? In the light of modern government abuses of power, no. It's a damned shame that Jackson et al were dicks to the Native Americans, but I'm preoccupied with more recent history, like FDR saddling half a dozen generations of Americans with socialism.

*<4 years

I do not think that word [socialism] means what you think it means.

gunfighter, sometimes you're funny, and sometimes you're ridiculous. are you really claiming that america is a socialist country?

Never mind about the definition of "socialist", I don't think Gunfighter understands the defintiion of "evil" which is the basis of this thread.

Whatever your political view regarding how senators are selected, it's a bit of a push to describe one particular method of selecting them as "evil", or to describe Woodrow Wilson as "evil" for supporting that particular method.

It is more shameful that he is willing to put a genocide that our country has never fessed up to on the backburner because FDR spent money in order to fix a depression. Seems like his priorities might be a little backwards.

"The federal income tax opened the door to big government. "But we need big government!". Oh, spare me. We won no fewer than four major wars, established ourselves as a world power, had world-class hospitals, schools, and transportation all *before* the 16th Amendment."

1. Yes...when the world was a different place.

2. Again, though--you don't see why it's sort of odd you claim THAT as a major American evil, instead of mentioning, oh, slavery, what we did to the Native Americans, what we did to *insert minority here,* denying women the right to vote until 1920...?

We're 50 semi-sovereign states, not one nation. We should really only unite as a nation during war or national emergency."

I disagree ENTIRELY, and find that point of view outdated, callous, shortsighted, and smacking of Confederate-style views...for which I've already voiced my hatred.

We are always the *United* States...not simply 50 semi-autonomous entities.

We ARE a nation, now and always...which means I always care what happens in Missouri or New York, because before being Californian, Missourian, or a New Yorker, we're ALL American, and therefore all united by a common national empathy for one another...at least, that's my view.

""Harmed"? Ha. Japanese nationals and Japanese-Americans had to spend >4 years in the desert. The nice, safe, isolated, well-fed, mildly uncomfortable desert."

Really?

You, who hates federal intrusion, you'd be perfectly OK having the US Army uproot you and your family JUST on the basis of your skin color and ancestry, in the face of ALL your legal rights, and put you in a concentration camp?

Fuck you, you callous hypocritical bastard--you're a disgrace to this nation, and you ought to be shown around those camps and apologize to its victims thereafter.

"Say what you want about the legality/Constitutionality of the Japanese Internment..."

So you care more about the legality/Constitutionality of your right to own a gun than of an American citizen to have their rights revoked and moved into concentration camps?

Again--you disgust me, you're a disgrace, and you ought to feel ashamed of yourself for valuing the constitutional legality of a gun above a human being.

@ obiwanobiwan

"You, who hates federal intrusion, you'd be perfectly OK having the US Army uproot you and your family JUST on the basis of your skin color and ancestry, in the face of ALL your legal rights, and put you in a concentration camp?"

In a total, declared war situation (WWII), all bets are off in terms of rights for those who might be sympathetic to the enemy, especially those that have an enemy ancestry.

Did we make a whole lot of innocent people camp out in the desert for a few years? Yes. Were there at least a handful of Imperial Japanese agents locked up in those camps? Yes, unless IJA espionage went out of business before Pearl Harbor.

I'm not saying that the Japanese internment was a proud moment for America, but I am saying that, given the circumstances of the war and given the conditions in the camps, it was a permissible preventive measure.

"and you ought to be shown around those camps and apologize to its victims thereafter."

And what if the Japanese had not been detained? Would you go door-to-door to the descendants of the Merchant Marines who would have been blown to hell by Japanese submarines as soon as they left port, acting on intelligence gathered by Japanese people on American soil.

I reiterate my assertion that a Japanese internment camp was probably one of the safest places in the entire world in which one could have spent WWII. No Japanese internment camp was bombed, strafed, firebombed, nuked, shelled, invaded, pillaged, or starved out. I truly do not understand the retroactive butthurt here. Hell, we dished out *reparations*(!) during the Reagan administration. "Oh, we're terribly sorry that we sheltered you from the horrors of war and compelled you to spend the duration of WWII in one of the safest places on planet Earth, all because a few members of your population were probably enemy agents who would have compromised national security. Here's $20,000!"

"So you care more about the legality/Constitutionality of your right to own a gun than of an American citizen to have their rights revoked and moved into concentration camps?"

In the context of a WWII-type scenario, yes. I would have rather seen Japanese-Americans in internment camps (I'm going to disregard your use of the word 'concentration'; there's plenty of flaws in your argument *without* bringing semantics into it) than American convoys/warships on the bottom of the Pacific. In either case, I'd rather see fully-automatic weapons in my gun cabinet than in the hands of a jack-booted government thug.

"Yes...when the world was a different place."

Really? What has changed? What's stopping us from repealing the power of the federal government to tax the income of individuals? If the federal government is incapable of operating within a certain budget, then it must cut its spending to meet that budget. The federal government is more than capable of discharging its Constitutional powers without a federal income tax, as it did for the first 120 years of our national existence.

"Again, though--you don't see why it's sort of odd you claim THAT as a major American evil, instead of mentioning, oh, slavery, what we did to the Native Americans, what we did to *insert minority here,* denying women the right to vote until 1920...?"

Once again, look around you! When the American nation falls, it will be because of amendments like the 16th. I am preoccupied with our long-term sustainability, not our past mistakes. Killing a nation as great as the United States (precisely what Big Brother is doing) is much more evil than any past atrocity.

"I disagree ENTIRELY, and find that point of view outdated, callous, shortsighted, and smacking of Confederate-style views...for which I've already voiced my hatred."

Log off and go read the Constitution, particularly the 10th Amendment. Then ask yourself if you want your day-to-day life managed by Texans. Or Californians. Or any other big state. Personally, I live where I live because I want to be governed by <insert my state's demonym here>. Who do you think can govern you better and listen to your grievances better? Your state or Washington, D.C.? I've personally spoken to no fewer than five state representatives in the last five years. I can't say the same for my state's federal delegation.

@ Jamiet

"Whatever your political view regarding how senators are selected, it's a bit of a push to describe one particular method of selecting them as "evil", or to describe Woodrow Wilson as "evil" for supporting that particular method."

Read the pertinent parts of my response to obi. Wilson's complicit actions in the disenfranchisement of the States has largely contributed to our current political predicament and our all-powerful federal government, which is much more damaging (and therefore evil) than any past mistakes. I am simply tracing current woes to their source and assigning blame accordingly.

"Damaging" and "evil" do not mean the same thing.

Before I respond to the REST of that insanity...

"Really? What has changed?"

Yes...what has POSSIBLY changed...

1776, 2014--totally same worlds!

Tell me, Gunfighter...have you seen a doctor lately? I think you might be in need of some leeches...

"Big government" is not evil. It is necessary in keeping order in a federation, and income tax is one of the most important things in fixing the hierarchy to a more progressive system. It needs to be changed to be more efficient and proper. And we can't have a confederacy. We are necessarily a single nation, a federation. If you'd actually read the constitution, you'd know that. And how would you say a government official is a "thug" that shouldn't have such weapons?

"In a total, declared war situation (WWII), all bets are off in terms of rights for those who might be sympathetic to the enemy, especially those that have an enemy ancestry."

1 million Armenians and 6 million Jews beg to differ...

Either you don't see how that attitude leads to genocide, or you don't care.

"In either case, I'd rather see fully-automatic weapons in my gun cabinet than in the hands of a jack-booted government thug."

So you're wiling to empower the federal government with so much power as to throw people into camps against their will AND in violation of their Constitutional rights (I thought you didn't like people flouting or going against the Constitution? Or do you just not care when it's non-white individuals having their Constitutional rights taken away?)...while at the same time clutching an automatic weapon...

To protect yourself from *the same federal government you just empowered in the first place.*

Mhm.

Obiwanobiwan- you are right on the mony about everything

FDR one of our countriest greatest men, and gun fighter who isn't worried about Jackson and native americans and sayin who cares about Japanese-AMERICANS who had all their rights stripped away. You are the modern Christian right gop republican NEO FACIST! if only you could make a time machine, go back and hug your hero adolf and fall with the rest of your racist ignorant views!!!!

"Would you go door-to-door to the descendants of the Merchant Marines who would have been blown to hell by Japanese submarines as soon as they left port, acting on intelligence gathered by Japanese people on American soil."

Yes.

And if they asked me why we didn't detain Japanese-Americans and throw them into camps, I'd remind them that their Marine husbands would have died in the service and protection of the name of the United States of America which, while it has not always lived up to those ideals, first and foremost was conceived of with the idealism that "all men are created equal" and guaranteed "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Regardless of race, creed, religion, skin color, OR ancestry.

Big government is not *necessarily* evil, Prado. I am sure we can list "big governments" that many would view as evil.

"If the federal government is incapable of operating within a certain budget, then it must cut its spending to meet that budget."

To even BEGIN to come close to balancing the budget, the United States would have to cease all spending on defense AND social security, the two biggest chunks.

And even if you wanted to say "fine," and gut our military as well as our social security programs, thereby making, oh, tens of millions across the nation suffer a massive loss of their only source of income while destroying our defenses...

Think of all the contracted jobs to private businesses (Boeing, Aerospace, etc.) which would be LOST...that's tens of millions more harmed.

It's not nearly as simple as you make it out to be, as "meeting" the budget for a superpower isn't the same as meeting the budget for an individual...and as the Right favors military spending and the Left social security, this isn't a partisan issue, either. BOTH sides agree, unless you want to do what I just said, cut the military and Social Security completely, and make the Great Depression look like a swinging party at the Kardashian household, you cannot balance the budget as it stands.

That's not right, wrong, or otherwise, but simply a FACT.

Also FDR gets way too much credit. All of the economic policies put in place to end the Great Depression failed. The only reason the Great Depression ended was because of the manufacturing, economic, and employment boom caused by WWII.

I agree that everyone is entitled to their own view when it comes to politics, but really hope that America, my country, and a country I love so much, does not end up with the ideas of ignorance and hate. I will state right now, that I voted for Obama twice and believe he is a great president, and one that has actually try to help our country and the ppl who live in it, and everyone who would like to be a part of this great experiment in democracy, known as the USA. I am honeslty really fed up of hearing, he is muslim and a communist and all that other bs. Muslim or not, we have freedom of religion. and reading ppl right about what Jackson did in the trail of tears isn't worth their time to feel anything, and the Japanese americans having everything taken from them, business's, house and homes, some families were split up, and even to this day, not all of those who had their rights trampled on, have still not been compensated. Aside, from all that, like I was saying in the beginning, I really hope this country is not turning into a paranoid close minded country, one that reminds me of the third reich. America is about starting over, where any and everyone has and can have a chance. the south lost, the KKK is just about gone(thank God) we helped stop the Nazis and fascism, and stopped evil soviet dictator style communism. we don't need ppl calling ppl socialist if they have no idea what it means. I actually like aspects of socialism and believes America could be the first modern country to actually implement it and have it succeed! anyway America is here for all, where we can all get an education, go treatment if sick or hurt. THis country is about ppl who wanna work, support themselves and family and not have to worry about being help back by morons due to their religion, race, gender, age etc!!!

"Log off and go read the Constitution, particularly the 10th Amendment. Then ask yourself if you want your day-to-day life managed by Texans. Or Californians. Or any other big state."

Ahem--

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

1. I never said my day-to-day life...Texas doesn't need to manage, say, the bus schedules out here in California, and vice versa. That being said, when we talk about an issue like, say, abortion, gun control, or same sex marriage, there are two paths to take on the issue--either pass a federal law (which the Constitution does allow us to do seeing as, well, a Congress which couldn't pass laws would be rather useless...and rather like our current Congress, but I digress) OR decide it on a state by state basis.

Sometimes the former is the better decision, sometimes the latter. For example, while *I* prefer strict gun control laws, and would like to see it enforced in counties and cities with huge populations, like New York, LA, etc., I can likewise see the argument that certain guns and GUN ATTITUDES *may* be safer and more acceptable in, say, Wyoming than West Los Angeles...given that the former is a vast state whose whole population barely approaches the total, cramped-together population of that one CITY.

So, on gun control, while there are certain things I'd like to see dealt with federally, I can likewise accede to a stronger states' rights attitude, and let that be decided state by state.

Civil rights is another matter. We already tried to decide what citizens should get what rights on a state by state basis before--namely, which would be Free and which would be *Slave* States...and then which states would be more progressive in its treatment of blacks, and which had Jim Crow laws. (Spoiler alert: same states.)

Seeing as the former contributed to a Civil War and the latter lead to the Civil Rights Movement (which you could almost argue was a sort of second, cultural civil war) I'm not eager to repeat the process, and would like the same civil rights handed out across the board, whether you live in Los Angeles or Louisiana.

So, in some cases, it IS best to reserve those powers to the states...in other cases, its better to use the lawmaking power the Constitution accords Congress and deal with the issue unilaterally.

"Big government is not *necessarily* evil, Prado. I am sure we can list "big governments" that many would view as evil." In one-state nations. Larger central governments are necessary for federations such as the United States.

2. "Personally, I live where I live because I want to be governed by <insert my state's demonym here>. Who do you think can govern you better and listen to your grievances better?"

Sometimes...YES, it MIGHT be other states!

If I'm a black man in 1840, and some states are pro-freedom but I live in Texas...then yeah, I think that the states favoring my freedom represent my needs and are more apt to hear my grievances than states where I would be considered property!

"Also FDR gets way too much credit. All of the economic policies put in place to end the Great Depression failed."

People can correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm sure they will) but I think there's a difference between "failed" and "didn't pull us out of the Great Depression but DID benefit us as a nation."

Social security, for example. I know Gunfighter and others here are likely to dislike it, but they would have to accede that hundreds of millions of Americans HAVE liked it and have benefited from it. (You can argue some abuse it, or that it's now being used in a manner for which it was not intended, both being fair criticisms, but that doesn't detract from its original intent, or the fact that it has helped many.)

Then there were other general welfare and, probably more importantly (since "welfare" is a dirty word nowadays) public works projects. FDR's programs allowed for a LOT of work to be done on our nation's infrastructure and allowed for other improvements to our nation as a whole by paying for public works.

Did it pull us out of the Great Depression?
No.
But did those programs still help millions, and continue to benefit us?
Yes, especially social security which, again, some may criticize, but even if we're living longer and it's not serving its true purposes in some cases today, it WAS, for decades, a welcomed safety net, and while that may not be true for all of us, just try and take it away from seniors, and then flee as they chase after you with their canes. ;)

Prado, would you call the Soviet Union a "big government"? It had several states under it, and I would say they didn't do to hot.

@Obi, I am not saying that all his programs were bad (though to pick on SS, it has been screwed over and is going to run itself into the ground), all I am saying is that he has gotten too much credit. Too many times have I heard about how great he was for pulling us out of the Great Depression. Heck, I've heard history and sociology teachers say it. But the numbers don't lie. WWII helped our nation out of that mess.

"The only reason the Great Depression ended was because of the manufacturing, economic, and employment boom caused by WWII."

I know, right? Government spending doesn't pull us out of economic trouble unless it's for war.

Salinger look up the numbers. The first year in WWII did 10 times the help the entire "New Deal" did for the economy.