Worst President in history ?

[CloudSquallandZidane]

Sorry, but this is completely false. The Confederates did not, in any way, shape, or form, fight to defend slavery--a fact which both sides were well aware of at the time. General Lee, for example, had inherited slaves but set them free long before the war began--while General Grant refused to set his free even after the war. Lincoln made it clear that he South would be his property--if he had to free all the slaves to do it; if he could do it without freeing any slaves, or if he had to free some slaves but could keep others enslaved--and Grant said that if he thought for a moment the war was about slavery he would resign his commission and give his sword to the other side. That's why the Emancipation Proclamation only applied to slaves in areas "in a state of rebel insurrection"--Maryland, Missouri, Delaware, and Kentucky, for example, didn't have to give theirs up until 1865 when it was added to our Constitution.

Well though we both know that saying the Southern States didnt succeed because Lincoln halted the expansion of slavery, and they didnt succeed from the union in order to keep their "pecular institution" around, is a huge fallacy i will provide u with evidence from South Carolina's own declaration of succession in which you will see clearly how they refer to the Northern States as "the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States." among other obvious pro-slavery references. I will skip to the main part that proves my point you may read the whole declaration at

South Carolina Declaration of Succession

The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.

The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.

The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.

The ends for which the Constitution was framed are declared by itself to be "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."

These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.

This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.

On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.

The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy.

Sectional interest and animosity will deepen the irritation, and all hope of remedy is rendered vain, by the fact that public opinion at the North has invested a great political error with the sanction of more erroneous religious belief.

We, therefore, the People of South Carolina, by our delegates in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared that the Union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of North America, is dissolved, and that the State of South Carolina has resumed her position among the nations of the world, as a separate and independent State; with 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.
Adopted December 24, 1860
[Committee signatures]

So u see it was a signifigant part of their reasoning for leaving the Union. I hope u understand ALL of what that flag u in ur sig represents.

Also note how the Union states were refered to repeatedly as non-slave holding This is definative proof that slavery was a MAJOR issue. I could underline and embolden more, but im getting tired.

EDIT:

If they had to invade and concour all of the Japanese islands at the end of WW2, the war could have lasted another 10 years, and killed another couple of thousand American troops. A general (or whoever else is in charge of the war) is charged with winning the war with as few of his soldiers dead as possible. If it were possible to get the same results with lesser means, then that's what should have happened. I suspect that without Sherman's March, the civil war may have lasted another 5 or so years, and the results would have been the same South is returned to the US, the only differnce is that more soldiers on both sides die.

The estimations at the time of casualties invading the Japanese mainland were upwards of 100,000 American soldiers lives, atleast. Thats enough justification in my mind to drop the bomb. Also Shemans march was MORE than crucial in the Souths surrender, the cut off of supplies and the destruction, were absolutely critical. Had he not done it, and done it so well, we could be saluting Redneck's flag, well i wouldnt, id probably be a slave.

[lordblazer]

Sherman's March was only to force the south to surrender.

That doesn't make it okay.

Excuse me? Where do you get off telling someone "you've got enough money, you don't have a right to any more"?

He never said that. He said that if you make enough money you don't deserve a tax cut. Not "If you make enough money you don't have the right to any more" Those are two completely different statements and you completely twisted his words.

The Rich" get flat-out screwed under our tax system, and if we're going to reduce the amount of money which the government takes from its citizens by force, than it's morally imperative that we reduce the robbery most where it's taking place most.

I disagree. We should reduce the robbery where it is doing the most damage. The rich may pay alot of taxes, but they will always be well off. Cutting taxes for the poor before cutting taxes for the rich is the morally right thing to do.

Shermans march was actually okay in my opinion.But it would've sucked to serve under general Grant.That guy's stragedy was to send everyone running in the open field towards the other side and hope some people made it.In the end the american civil war was the worst american war.More americans died in that war than any other americans combined with all the other wars we've had.

[edczxcvbnm]

Just some nice interesting charts about the the revenues recieved by the federal government and how they have spent over the years. GW is the WORST! I knew he was bad and everything but DAMN!

The projections are scary but there is always time to fix it.

http://www.heritage.org/research/fea...harts_C/c3.cfm

[The Redneck]

Well though we both know that saying the Southern States didnt succeed because Lincoln halted the expansion of slavery, and they didnt succeed from the union in order to keep their "pecular institution" around, is a huge fallacy

Actually, saying so is common sense, backed up by simple observation. Especially since Lincoln made it very clear, more than once, that he had no desire to oppose slavery.

I hope u understand ALL of what that flag u in ur sig represents.

And since slavery existed under the US flag for more than 70 years, I suppose that means you direct the same unreasoning hatred at the United States?

While slavery did indeed exist in many areas of the US, and conditions were little if any better for black people elsewhere in the nation, four references in a document of several pages does not a document about slavery make. Sorry, but the race-card has no sway here--especially considering the Civil War was an invasion ordered by a man made rich off of inherited slave-trading money and carried out by a slaveowner.

Also Shemans march was MORE than crucial in the Souths surrender, the cut off of supplies and the destruction, were absolutely critical.

And the rape? The theft? The grave desecration? Sherman's acts go far, far beyond acts of war.

Had he not done it, and done it so well, we could be saluting Redneck's flag, well i wouldnt, id probably be a slave.

Said saluting is far better than praising the rapine and slaughter of a bunch of yankee Huns, but slavery was on its way out for a variety of reasons--among them religious, cultural, and economic. Britain, France, Mexico--in fact most nations of the world--engaged in slavery and do so no longer, and in not one single one of these instances was a war necessary to achieve the end of this abominable institution. But somehow, the United States was unique here?

A luxury tax is completely unrelated to what I'm talking about. I'm saying that the extra money we are giving to the top 1% of earners through these cuts does not help the little guys because it basically gets handed from one rich person to another.

Actually, a luxury tax affects exactly that "handed from one rich person to another" theory you were espousing. And as I noted, it obviously does help the "little guys" because when that 'extra money' was reduced, thousands of people ended up without jobs. Moreover...

I'm saying that the extra money we are giving to the top 1% of earners through these cuts

Giving? Giving? Stealing less money from someone is not "giving" them anything, nor is money that someone earned "extra money".

He never said that. He said that if you make enough money you don't deserve a tax cut. Not "If you make enough money you don't have the right to any more" Those are two completely different statements and you completely twisted his words.

So if you make enough money you still deserve what you earn, except that government should take away more of it?

I disagree. We should reduce the robbery where it is doing the most damage. The rich may pay alot of taxes, but they will always be well off. Cutting taxes for the poor before cutting taxes for the rich is the morally right thing to do.

Actually, "the poor" pay 0 in taxes already, along with a significant chunk of the middle class. The poorer half of the nation pays something like 5% of government revenues--in other words, they're already recieving services paid for by the "eeeeevil rich", so the morally right thing to do is quit stealing from the persons being stolen from, not to give more of that money to the persons recieving it.

[eestlinc]

Actually, a luxury tax affects exactly that "handed from one rich person to another" theory you were espousing. And as I noted, it obviously does help the "little guys" because when that 'extra money' was reduced, thousands of people ended up without jobs. Moreover.

But I'm saying that the only reason they can spend this extra money is because they were granted a tax cut. A luxury tax is a consumption based tax, and we are discussing an income based tax.

Actually, "the poor" pay 0 in taxes already, along with a significant chunk of the middle class.

Well, "the poor" don't pay income tax because they hardly have income and what little they have is usually below exemption levels or the EITC, but I assure you they pay plenty of other taxes.

Clearly we just have a fundamental disagreement about the role of government in society. Neither view is technically right or wrong, but the two approaches lead to drastically different societies.

[The Redneck]

But I'm saying that the only reason they can spend this extra money is because they were granted a tax cut.

No. I'm afraid I must disagree in the strongest terms possible. The reason they can spend this 'extra' money is because they earned it, not because they were granted anything. Wealth does not come from the government.

A luxury tax is a consumption based tax, and we are discussing an income based tax.

Money was taken away from rich people by the government. This is a tax on the rich.

[edczxcvbnm]

It isn't that people who make a lot of money don't deserve to keep what they make but by being so fortunate they must give up a slight bit of what they have so that the whole country can function better. That or we can raise taxes across the board to cover the lack that is made for cutting the taxes from the rich. Then just so that people can survive salaries would have to be raised across the board just so we don't increase the poverty % greatly. In then end we hurt buisness, the poor and lower middle class while we give the rich an extra 2-3%. Or we could cut away tons of things from our budget. Lets get rid of Medicad, Social Security and the Defense Budget. Or we could legalize drugs and tax the out of it. There are other things we can do to get the money. To bad everyone in the government is in the pocket of buisness so nothing gets done.

I am not saying it can't be done but just not very easily. If you look at the projections for spending in the future it doesn't look good. The government in short needs massive reform on both sides. We need to get out of other countries buisness until we can get ourselves under control.

Also you comment about the American flag being just as racist as the Confederate flag due to the more than 70 years of slavery under the flag...yeah. The American flag STOOD for it at some point(notice the past tense) while the confederate flag STANDS for it(notice the present tense). Since the confederate was taken out while it still stood for slavery it shall always stand for it.

[eestlinc]

well, we could debate how they "earned" it if you want to take that route. Or the role the government played in facilitating that earning, ie the government provides and maintains the infrastructure necessary for our economy to function at all, police protection, education to provide competent workers, etc. Or the morality of having wealth in the first place.

I may "earn" all the money I get in my paycheck, but I can't just refuse to pay my landlord because I think he takes too much of my money. I could, but I'd have to move out. Paying taxes is the cost of living in the society we have and reaping the benefits of living here. You can't get around that unless you want to move to another country, or unless you can manage to change this country to fit your desires.

edit: I'd have to agree with The Redneck that for the "North" to mock the "South" as being institutionally racist is pretty hypocritical. All were guilty of such things at that time, and quite frankly, having lived in both the deep south and the industrial midwest, I'd say the south has done at least as good a job coming to terms with and addressing the problems of racism as the rest of the country.

[edczxcvbnm]

I don't deny that they have tried to combat racism just as much as the rest of the country. That still doesn't change what the confederate flag stood and stands for.

You also come up with some great economic arguements that I need to write down

[Azure Chrysanthemum]

Why is the gap between rich and poor widening, both in terms of the rich to poor ratio and the difference between the property owned by either? Something to think about, given our current economic plan.

[The Redneck]

.yeah. The American flag STOOD for it at some point(notice the past tense) while the confederate flag STANDS for it(notice the present tense).

The problem being, neither flag stood or stands for slavery. Both nations allowed it, but support of neither nation did or does mean support of slavery. Again--sorry, but the race-card still has no sway here.

That or we can raise taxes across the board to cover the lack that is made for cutting the taxes from the rich.

Actually, experience has proven that cutting taxes from the rich brings about more revenue, since people who have money are able to invest it rather than having it stolen from them. And a far more viable option is for the government to get out of matters that don't concern it. Our federal government is incredibly bloated, and stealing yet more money from its citizens is the worst solution we could implement.

Or the role the government played in facilitating that earning, ie the government provides and maintains the infrastructure necessary for our economy to function at all, police protection, education to provide competent workers, etc.

Police (and military protection) and various vital parts of our infrastructure make up a very small percentage of what our government spends (and seeing as a) the government does not have the right nor the duty to take away our money to set up schools and b) the government does an absolutely abysmal job at it, I don't list education as one of the boons granted by our government)--if you were to get rid of what's basically useless crap (the best example that comes to mind is the National Endowment for the Arts, but pork-barrel spending abounds, and unfortunately there's plenty to be found on both sides of the aisle) and make the eeeeeevil rich pay for the things we actually need, then they'd still end up saving huge amounts of money--which, in turn would go to hiring people and lowering prices to try and undercut their competitors.

Or the morality of having wealth in the first place.

Being successful as something immoral? Not in this country.

I may "earn" all the money I get in my paycheck, but I can't just refuse to pay my landlord because I think he takes too much of my money.

Yes, you can. You can find a different landlord, or try to buy your own home, or try to work out an arrangement. When the government takes too much of your money, however, you have two choices--you can pay the money, or you can wait until the government sends men with guns to come get the money. This--the power to use force--is a power that resides solely with the government, and makes taxation a vastly different matter from a business arrangement such as renting a home.

Paying taxes is the cost of living in the society we have and reaping the benefits of living here.

And never did I say that no one should have to pay taxes--evil they may be, but they're a necessary evil. My problem is with taxes being raised far higher than they need to be, in order to provide "services" that a) do more harm than good, b) are horridly inefficient (like I mentioned earlier, nobody in their right mind would invest their money in a retirement fund that gives 1-2% interest and no guarantees that you'll get a dime of it--much less how much you get or when you get it--or donate to a charity that gets about 28 cents on the dollar to the people it's designed to help, but that's Social Security and welfare in a nutshell) and c) the government has no right or duty to provide. "The Rich" already pay in vast disproportion for the services provided to everyone, and it's high time we quit punishing achievement.


And I too have had to live in the midwest (horrible, awful, nasty place), and I saw far more racism and subtle segregation in Illinois (and Maryland, which I've visited) than I ever saw in Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, or Georgia, where I've lived, or in Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Florida, North and South Carolina, or Virginia, which I have visited or passed through.

[eestlinc]

because of the decline in the power of labor unions and the breakdown of collective bargaining. Labor unions are the only force that can truly keep big business in check (well the government could try, but that's not a great idea). It's no coincidence that the beginning of the weakening of the labor movement in the 1970s coincides with the increasing stratification of wealth.

Being successful as something immoral? Not in this country.

Who says success has anything to do with wealth? There are plenty of ways to become successful without becoming rich.

Anyway, being taxed more highly is the cost of being rich in the United States. I think most people given the choice between being rich and taxed heavily, or being poor and taxed lightly, would choose to be rich and taxed.

[lordblazer]

Actually, a luxury tax affects exactly that "handed from one rich person to another" theory you were espousing. And as I noted, it obviously does help the "little guys" because when that 'extra money' was reduced, thousands of people ended up without jobs. Moreover.

But I'm saying that the only reason they can spend this extra money is because they were granted a tax cut. A luxury tax is a consumption based tax, and we are discussing an income based tax.

Actually, "the poor" pay 0 in taxes already, along with a significant chunk of the middle class.

Well, "the poor" don't pay income tax because they hardly have income and what little they have is usually below exemption levels or the EITC, but I assure you they pay plenty of other taxes.

Clearly we just have a fundamental disagreement about the role of government in society. Neither view is technically right or wrong, but the two approaches lead to drastically different societies.

The basis of the civl war was caused by whenever there was a new state or territory.They wanted to decide on rather it was a free state or a slave state.To tell me that the civil war wasn't over slavery is stupid.

[CloudSquallandZidane]

Well though we both know that saying the Southern States didnt succeed because Lincoln halted the expansion of slavery, and they didnt succeed from the union in order to keep their "pecular institution" around, is a huge fallacy

Actually, saying so is common sense, backed up by simple observation. Especially since Lincoln made it very clear, more than once, that he had no desire to oppose slavery.

I hope u understand ALL of what that flag u in ur sig represents.

And since slavery existed under the US flag for more than 70 years, I suppose that means you direct the same unreasoning hatred at the United States?

While slavery did indeed exist in many areas of the US, and conditions were little if any better for black people elsewhere in the nation, four references in a document of several pages does not a document about slavery make. Sorry, but the race-card has no sway here--especially considering the Civil War was an invasion ordered by a man made rich off of inherited slave-trading money and carried out by a slaveowner.

Well Redneck plz read the letter of Succession from South Carolina, that is word for word the exact declaration of their sucession from the Union and their reasoning as to why. How can u possibly deny that? It clearly states keeping slavery around was a main concern. Hell i cant even argue with facts. So how can u?

Well, the United States changed its ways it now stands for freedom of all people, as opposed to ur flag which represents hatred, racism, and slavery. So therefore i stand by the U.S. government of today, not the one influenced by the southern states, u so adamently defend. Based on the rules back then slavery could not have been abolished, because the slave owners of the south had soo much power in the government, but the Northern States did their best to abolish slavery, once again it says it in the letter of Succession i posted. Just because i only emboldened 4 parts doesnt mean thats all there is. Also the document wasnt several pages, it was very short really, click on the link i posted see for urself.

Did i play the race card? I dont remember saying anything about u trying to opress me because im black... I simply was refering to the fact that if the Confederacy did win, based on the way the South was going its obvious slavery would have been legalized everywhere, do u doubt that? And i think that would be a few steps back from

...slavery was on its way out..

Also to prove that that the Confederate Government wasnt going to abolish slavery, i take an quote from their Constiution Section IX from which it states

No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the
right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

Also allow me to illude to another confederate document commonly know as the "Cornstone speech" by Alexander H. Stephens explaing to the people the provisions of the Confederate Constitution, allow me to give u another example:

But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other -- though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution—African slavery as it exists amongst us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind—from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics. Their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just—but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal."

And the rape? The theft? The grave desecration? Sherman's acts go far, far beyond acts of war.

Said saluting is far better than praising the rapine and slaughter of a bunch of yankee Huns,

As long as u support the Confederacy, while u know their policies toward the millions of Blacks they kept as slaves, then u sir have no right to speak against rape or theft or anykind of desecration. I'm NOT sorry if i dont feel any pity toward those who would support, a government that allows slavery to exist within its borders. The Union did what it had to do to end the war, and i wouldnt care if they smote the South to ashes and dust for what they were doing to people. Just like i wouldnt have cared if the U.S. dropped 10 nukes on Germany to beat them in WWII. Frankly the world is alot better off without these people.

The problem being, neither flag stood or stands for slavery. Both nations allowed it, but support of neither nation did or does mean support of slavery.

So i guess u wouldnt say the Nazi flag stood for hate and white supremacy, u'd just say it stood for Germany 1930s-1940s. Well i consider a flag that oppresses any group of people to stand for oppression of that same group of people. Just like i'd say since the US says everyone has freedom, the US flag stands for freedom. Doesnt that seem logical?

[Jess]

I'm not american, but I think that Bush and his Daddy are the worst. Maybe this is because I don't know much background of all of the presidents, and so on. But, I despise him, personal opinion. I will also stop there before I go on ranting about how much I hate him.