|
Post by Dullahan on Dec 2, 2010 15:31:12 GMT -5
True. No argument there. But that also ignores an important point. Part of the President's JOB is to uphold the law. Jackson ignored a law he didn't like. Like a Supreme Court decision or not, once it's made it's the law.
Well.....keep in mind he also liked to EAT amognst the bodies, and the method of impalement ensured maximum pain and that they would take awhile to die, like if it was done right it might take an hour or so(I don't believe they'd last longer than that at all, like some stories say), which would be disturbing to pretty much anyone. Well, maybe not the Vikings(the bloody eagle, bleh). Not to mention what happened with the Turkish ambassadors and their turbans.....
My point is this, really, I'm just bad at saying it. You can excuse much of what people do as just part of their world, but there comes a point where that's not possible anymore. A point past which there is no excuse, no matter who they are. Tepes was a terrible, brutal man, no matter what his world was like. Even if it's understandable(and it is, given what Medieval Europe was like), I don't find it excusable.
And again, I'm not trying to argue, I think your right, I just don't agree completely.
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Dec 2, 2010 15:33:13 GMT -5
Whether or not Vlad Tepes ate amongst the bodies is arguable. There's a whole lot of mythology wrapped up in his story.
I saw a show on him once where they said that if he killed people at the rate ascribed to him, he would have depopulated Wallachia 3 or 4 times over.
|
|
|
Post by Dullahan on Dec 2, 2010 15:52:19 GMT -5
Well, most of the people he killed were Turks, so, that would help.
But yeah, there's way to many myths about this guy to really nail down to many facts. But suffice to say, he wasn't a nice guy.
But then, this was the Middle Ages. Even the Pope wasn't neccesarily guaranteed to be particularly kind.
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on Dec 2, 2010 16:31:23 GMT -5
As someone who only read the beginning and ending of this conversation, I think it's safe to say that Vlad the Impaler was the worst President in U.S. history.
~TWF
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Dec 2, 2010 16:42:20 GMT -5
As someone who only read the beginning and ending of this conversation, I think it's safe to say that Vlad the Impaler was the worst President in U.S. history. ~TWF No way. Lex Luthor and Robert Kelly were worse. Plus that guy from 24.
|
|
|
Post by malice on Dec 2, 2010 17:28:55 GMT -5
Lol, started reading this thread and pulled up my guide on History Channel, I know you already said it but it's funny to see people proven correct:
"Beyond the Da Vinci Code" "Angels & Demons Decoded" "Ancient Aliens" "Brad Meltzer's Decoded" (Freemason thing)
That's all I wanted to waste time typing.
The funny thing is that I'm pretty sure the History channel was way ahead of the author of the Da Vinci Code on all that stuff, and that the author was actually late to the party.
As for Freemason stuff, eh.
On the Sundance channel there's a movie called "The Pleasure of Being Robbed", one of the actors in it is named just "Batman."
I suppose it all fits together and makes sense because none of it makes sense or fits together.
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Dec 2, 2010 17:53:44 GMT -5
I don't think the History channel was ahead of Brown on anything, as they're primarily concerned with history.
Dan Brown didn't get... well, anything at all... right in his portrayal of the core beliefs of Christianity, the history of the Roman Catholic Church, art in general, architecture, or European history.
History Channel has an... interesting editorial policy, at times. But they're nowhere near as out there as Dan Brown.
|
|
|
Post by Hoots Rowlet on Dec 2, 2010 18:44:32 GMT -5
What Jackson did by ignoring the Court's ruling was no better than taking the Constitution and wiping your behind with it... I don't see how anyone can justify that one bit. That would be like the President ignoring a Congressional bill, and sending the Military to forcefully remove them from Washington.
|
|
|
Post by Dullahan on Dec 2, 2010 18:45:59 GMT -5
Agreed, something I've said several times. But I think we were trying to get back on topic..... ;D
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Dec 2, 2010 19:09:14 GMT -5
What Jackson did by ignoring the Court's ruling was no better than taking the Constitution and wiping your behind with it... I don't see how anyone can justify that one bit. That would be like the President ignoring a Congressional bill, and sending the Military to forcefully remove them from Washington. Bearing in mind that everything not expressly given to the Federal Government in the Constitution is expressly forbidden to the Federal Government by the Constitution... I'm going to go out on a limb and say that almost all of you guys' favorite President's have "wiped their ass with the Constitution." Let's be honest here. That's not your real point. Your real point is that Jackson did something you find immoral, and therefore he's a bad guy. I don't see anybody here (besides me) upset about the fact that FDR violated the Constitution like it was a slutty prom date. But that's not really the point. You're acting as if I'm justifying his actions. I'm not. I'm simply saying that he has to be judged by the standard of his time and with an eye toward what was going on at the time he was alive.
|
|