Correct Jack. In fact, Bush told us to begin with that the war against terrorism would be long and drawn out, and that it would take years, and ALSO that there would be times when we wouldn't know what was going on because it would be done in secret! How short are the memories of some people. Mainly those people want to harp on that "Mission Accomplished" statement to try to discredit Bush.<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Jack Bourbon:
Stop it, all of you.
No one has said the war in Iraq is over. Bush may have said that the war against Hussein's regime is over, but he's never come close to trying to act like the game in that place is won.
Everyone needs to friggin chill out on Iraq.
</font>
Worst President in History?
- Thread starter CrimsonNan
- Start date
As for who was the worst president(s):
1. LBJ - For getting us deeper in the Vietnam War, and then making sure that we couldn't win. And also for his not-so-great Society.
2. Carter - For his general ineptness - period.
3. Clinton - For his ineptness, lying, and immoral behavior.
1. LBJ - For getting us deeper in the Vietnam War, and then making sure that we couldn't win. And also for his not-so-great Society.
2. Carter - For his general ineptness - period.
3. Clinton - For his ineptness, lying, and immoral behavior.
The Articles of Confederation...
Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.
<hr>
According to the Declaration of Independence, political unions are not sacrosanct. Truly precious is liberty and government instituted by the people that remains under the consent of the people.
"When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands 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 of the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation... 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 of these ends, it is the right of the people to altar 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" (The Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776).
<hr>
The members of the Second Continental Congress were not members of a governing body, but were delegates and ambassadors sent by governors and legislatures of the thirteen States, States that tenaciously asserted and guarded their respective sovereignty.
<hr>
Thomas Jefferson, a Democratic-Republican and staunch advocate of democracy, and believing that the Union was a group of sovereign States that had carefully delegated specific powers to an administrative agent, stated his view of States' rights within the Union as follows, "My plan would be to make the states one as to everything connected with foreign nations, and several as to everything purely domestic".
<hr>
The June 26, 1788 Virginia Act of Ratification of the United States Constitution contained clarifying language stating that the people of Virginia reserved the right to recall the powers they delegated to the newly formed federal government if "the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will".
<hr>
Prior to ratifying the U.S. Constitution, the States of New York and Rhode Island reserved the right to recall the powers they were delegating to the new federal government by stating that "the powers of government may be reassumed by the people whenever it shall become necessary to their happiness".
<hr>
The Pennsylvania delegation to the Constitutional Convention opposed ratification saying that "the powers vested in Congress by this constitution, must necessarily annihilate and absorb the legislative, executive, and judicial powers of the several States" resulting in "iron-handed despotism" of the central government.
<hr>
James Madison, "the father of the Constitution", expressed his view of the proposed new government and the sovereign status of the States as they ratified the new constitution when he stated,
"In order to ascertain the real character of the government, it may be considered in relation to the foundation on which it is to be established; to the sources from which its ordinary powers are to be drawn; to the operation of those powers; to the extent of them; and to the authority by which future changes in the government are to be introduced.
On examining the first relation, it appears, on one hand, that the Constitution is to be founded on the assent and ratification of the people of America, given by deputies elected for the special purpose; but, on the other, that this assent and ratification is to be given by the people, not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong. It is to be the assent and ratification of the several States, derived from the supreme authority in each State, the authority of the people themselves. The act, therefore, establishing the Constitution, will not be a NATIONAL, but a FEDERAL act.
That it will be a federal and not a national act, as these terms are understood by the objectors; the act of the people, as forming so many independent States, not as forming one aggregate nation... Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its voluntary act" (James Madison, Federalist Papers, Number XXXIX).
<hr>
Dissenting States would not ratify the Constitution without the assurance that a Bill of Rights to the Constitution, declaring the privileges inviolably retained by the people of the States and limiting the reach of the Federal government, would be put through in the first session of the new Congress.
<hr>
In 1798, the legislatures of Kentucky, inspired by Thomas Jefferson, and Virginia, inspired by James Madison, asserting their belief that they had the sovereign right to nullify any illegal or harmful acts of the Federal government, declared that both the Alien and Sedition Acts, passed by the Federalist controlled Congress, were unconstitutional and would not be enforced in their States.
<hr>
It was widely proposed by New England Federalists that the New England States secede from the Union should Jefferson be elected president in the election of 1800. The Federalist newspaper, the Columbian Centinel, warned, "Tremble then in case of Jefferson's election, all ye holders of public funds, for your ruin is at hand." Federalist John Adams, having lost his reelection bid, was so disgusted at the outcome of the election, he refused to welcome Jefferson or attend his inauguration.
It is still my contention that Lincoln was not an honorable man, but a despot and a tyrant.
Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.
<hr>
According to the Declaration of Independence, political unions are not sacrosanct. Truly precious is liberty and government instituted by the people that remains under the consent of the people.
"When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands 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 of the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation... 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 of these ends, it is the right of the people to altar 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" (The Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776).
<hr>
The members of the Second Continental Congress were not members of a governing body, but were delegates and ambassadors sent by governors and legislatures of the thirteen States, States that tenaciously asserted and guarded their respective sovereignty.
<hr>
Thomas Jefferson, a Democratic-Republican and staunch advocate of democracy, and believing that the Union was a group of sovereign States that had carefully delegated specific powers to an administrative agent, stated his view of States' rights within the Union as follows, "My plan would be to make the states one as to everything connected with foreign nations, and several as to everything purely domestic".
<hr>
The June 26, 1788 Virginia Act of Ratification of the United States Constitution contained clarifying language stating that the people of Virginia reserved the right to recall the powers they delegated to the newly formed federal government if "the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will".
<hr>
Prior to ratifying the U.S. Constitution, the States of New York and Rhode Island reserved the right to recall the powers they were delegating to the new federal government by stating that "the powers of government may be reassumed by the people whenever it shall become necessary to their happiness".
<hr>
The Pennsylvania delegation to the Constitutional Convention opposed ratification saying that "the powers vested in Congress by this constitution, must necessarily annihilate and absorb the legislative, executive, and judicial powers of the several States" resulting in "iron-handed despotism" of the central government.
<hr>
James Madison, "the father of the Constitution", expressed his view of the proposed new government and the sovereign status of the States as they ratified the new constitution when he stated,
"In order to ascertain the real character of the government, it may be considered in relation to the foundation on which it is to be established; to the sources from which its ordinary powers are to be drawn; to the operation of those powers; to the extent of them; and to the authority by which future changes in the government are to be introduced.
On examining the first relation, it appears, on one hand, that the Constitution is to be founded on the assent and ratification of the people of America, given by deputies elected for the special purpose; but, on the other, that this assent and ratification is to be given by the people, not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong. It is to be the assent and ratification of the several States, derived from the supreme authority in each State, the authority of the people themselves. The act, therefore, establishing the Constitution, will not be a NATIONAL, but a FEDERAL act.
That it will be a federal and not a national act, as these terms are understood by the objectors; the act of the people, as forming so many independent States, not as forming one aggregate nation... Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its voluntary act" (James Madison, Federalist Papers, Number XXXIX).
<hr>
Dissenting States would not ratify the Constitution without the assurance that a Bill of Rights to the Constitution, declaring the privileges inviolably retained by the people of the States and limiting the reach of the Federal government, would be put through in the first session of the new Congress.
<hr>
In 1798, the legislatures of Kentucky, inspired by Thomas Jefferson, and Virginia, inspired by James Madison, asserting their belief that they had the sovereign right to nullify any illegal or harmful acts of the Federal government, declared that both the Alien and Sedition Acts, passed by the Federalist controlled Congress, were unconstitutional and would not be enforced in their States.
<hr>
It was widely proposed by New England Federalists that the New England States secede from the Union should Jefferson be elected president in the election of 1800. The Federalist newspaper, the Columbian Centinel, warned, "Tremble then in case of Jefferson's election, all ye holders of public funds, for your ruin is at hand." Federalist John Adams, having lost his reelection bid, was so disgusted at the outcome of the election, he refused to welcome Jefferson or attend his inauguration.
It is still my contention that Lincoln was not an honorable man, but a despot and a tyrant.
NBF, you're entitled to your opinion, however, if you plan on supporting it with evidence from the Articles of Confederation, your argument loses validity. The Articles of Confederation, although it was the first law of the land, was a failed system. As a result, the need was in place for the Constitution.
You're evidence, otherwise, is good. However, the fact that there is not a set provision in the Constitution regarding the ability for states to leave is key. If the states at the ratifying convention had intended for secession to be an opporunity, they should have included it in the document.
It is still my contention the CSA illegally left the Union, and Lincoln did what he had to do to bring them back to the Union.
[This message has been edited by DiamondDust (edited 05-11-2004).]
You're evidence, otherwise, is good. However, the fact that there is not a set provision in the Constitution regarding the ability for states to leave is key. If the states at the ratifying convention had intended for secession to be an opporunity, they should have included it in the document.
It is still my contention the CSA illegally left the Union, and Lincoln did what he had to do to bring them back to the Union.
[This message has been edited by DiamondDust (edited 05-11-2004).]
I seriously doubt you've studied more about WWII then all, or even most, of the historians interviewed. I'm not saying you haven't studied more than some, maybe even many, of those interviewed, but certainly not all.
But that's not the point: this study included hundreds of opinions from people considered experts in this field. It is much more meaningful then any one person's opinion, even if that opinion does belong to an expert (although we have no way of verifying your expert credentials, do we?). You happen to disagree with the conclusion they came too and you feel the need to discredit it by saying that your opinion is more valid then hundreds of opposing ones.
I'll still stick with the book's conclusion.
I don't like posting more than 3 times to any one thread, and I already feel like I've posted a long response to this one, so I'll leave it at that.
But that's not the point: this study included hundreds of opinions from people considered experts in this field. It is much more meaningful then any one person's opinion, even if that opinion does belong to an expert (although we have no way of verifying your expert credentials, do we?). You happen to disagree with the conclusion they came too and you feel the need to discredit it by saying that your opinion is more valid then hundreds of opposing ones.
I'll still stick with the book's conclusion.
I don't like posting more than 3 times to any one thread, and I already feel like I've posted a long response to this one, so I'll leave it at that.
I believe that I said "most"... not "all".
BTW... "experts" have a tendency to agree with each other even if they have no knowledge of a subject. If one well-known historian reads a papyrus scroll and determines that it was written 3000 years ago, all historians will tell you that it was written 3000 years ago(except for that one voice in the wilderness who looked at it and determined that it was written 5000 years ago).
You state that FDR was one of the two top presidents in history... NO QUESTION?
You unequivocally state this because you read it in a history book? Pachy LIVED through the FDR era and might have written more on FDR than you have read(you might like to hear his credentials, since you seem to have a lot of faith in credentials).
I think that FDR led the country through some of the toughest years of its history. He did an admirable job in most aspects. However, he laid the foundation for much of the government bureaucracy under which we languish today.
It's quite naive to consider his position among presidents unquestionable because of a consensus of history book "experts" and to subsequently disregard the opinion of one who experienced that era firsthand.
------------------
"I've never been quarantined, but the more I look around the more I think it might not be a bad thing." -- George Carlin
Right, Orange ---
Once up a time most experts considered the world as flat. Then they decided it was round and located Asia just across the Atlantic Ocean from Europe. Prior to that most "experts" ruled that the earth was the center of the universe and that sun, stars and moon revolved around us. It took a lot of knocking to get that idea out of their heads.
The advance of science in the 19th century spawned a philosophy termed "scientific materialism," excluding any chance of religion. Under this philosophy the universe was as Newton preached it, static and eternal. There is nothing but matter. All the forms we see --- from galaxy, to stars, to planets, to man to bug --- were formed by the random collision of atoms. After all, if one puts an infinite number of monkeys to pounding on typewriters for an infinite time, they are likely to write every book in every library.
This was the party line. To doubt it was to undermine the very foundation of science.
Unfortunately, along came three astronomers, two mathematicians, Albert Einstein, two students and a clutch of technicians. They produced the Big Bang theory, under which the universe came into being 15 billion years ago in a cosmic explosion --- far too short a time to explain creation by atoms bumping together.
Although "experts" fought the idea (as late as 1957 most of them refused to give the Big Bang any credence) it isn't disputed much anymore. Many "experts" are busily hatching new theories to resurrect their beloved eternal universe.
This is running on rather long. If anyone would like the sordid details, I wrote an article on the subject which may be found at:
http://home.bellsouth.net/p/s/community.dll?ep=87&subpageid=140555&ck=
Once up a time most experts considered the world as flat. Then they decided it was round and located Asia just across the Atlantic Ocean from Europe. Prior to that most "experts" ruled that the earth was the center of the universe and that sun, stars and moon revolved around us. It took a lot of knocking to get that idea out of their heads.
The advance of science in the 19th century spawned a philosophy termed "scientific materialism," excluding any chance of religion. Under this philosophy the universe was as Newton preached it, static and eternal. There is nothing but matter. All the forms we see --- from galaxy, to stars, to planets, to man to bug --- were formed by the random collision of atoms. After all, if one puts an infinite number of monkeys to pounding on typewriters for an infinite time, they are likely to write every book in every library.
This was the party line. To doubt it was to undermine the very foundation of science.
Unfortunately, along came three astronomers, two mathematicians, Albert Einstein, two students and a clutch of technicians. They produced the Big Bang theory, under which the universe came into being 15 billion years ago in a cosmic explosion --- far too short a time to explain creation by atoms bumping together.
Although "experts" fought the idea (as late as 1957 most of them refused to give the Big Bang any credence) it isn't disputed much anymore. Many "experts" are busily hatching new theories to resurrect their beloved eternal universe.
This is running on rather long. If anyone would like the sordid details, I wrote an article on the subject which may be found at:
http://home.bellsouth.net/p/s/community.dll?ep=87&subpageid=140555&ck=
I didn't live through the Lincoln era, but I'll bet if anyone had run a popularity poll on Abe through his tenure it would look like the seismograph of an LA quake.
First off, many northerners were in favor of neither civil war nor freeing the slaves. Big city types weren't exactly keen about being drafted either and expressed themselves forcefully in riots (a Doppelganger of today's peacenik demonstrations). Intellectuals and editors were somewhat shocked when Lincoln suspended habeas corpus (his version of the Patriot Act), and those who landed in jail without trial liked the idea even less. Democrats were definitely not in favor of a Republican in the White House.
The resemblance between the administrations of Bush and Lincoln is striking. Both led the nation into controversial wars after sudden attacks. Both were dogged all the way by vociferous critics. Bush invaded Iraq and freed the victims of tyranny, while Lincoln (despite his early denials) was firmly fixed on freeing the slaves, which he did.
Lincoln got a popularity boost when southern forces fired on Ft. Sumter as the North rallied 'round the flag. Bush's poll numbers went through the roof after 9/11 as Americans rallied 'round the flag.
Both were opposed by the same party, Democrats. Both were criticized for the war's casualty figures. Lincoln's losses ran into the hundreds of thousands. Bush's into the hundreds.
Lincoln did not achieve sainthood until after he was assassinated. Bush is still waiting.
First off, many northerners were in favor of neither civil war nor freeing the slaves. Big city types weren't exactly keen about being drafted either and expressed themselves forcefully in riots (a Doppelganger of today's peacenik demonstrations). Intellectuals and editors were somewhat shocked when Lincoln suspended habeas corpus (his version of the Patriot Act), and those who landed in jail without trial liked the idea even less. Democrats were definitely not in favor of a Republican in the White House.
The resemblance between the administrations of Bush and Lincoln is striking. Both led the nation into controversial wars after sudden attacks. Both were dogged all the way by vociferous critics. Bush invaded Iraq and freed the victims of tyranny, while Lincoln (despite his early denials) was firmly fixed on freeing the slaves, which he did.
Lincoln got a popularity boost when southern forces fired on Ft. Sumter as the North rallied 'round the flag. Bush's poll numbers went through the roof after 9/11 as Americans rallied 'round the flag.
Both were opposed by the same party, Democrats. Both were criticized for the war's casualty figures. Lincoln's losses ran into the hundreds of thousands. Bush's into the hundreds.
Lincoln did not achieve sainthood until after he was assassinated. Bush is still waiting.
Have to agree that Lincoln was the worst. Bush? Hadn't made up my mind just yet. He followed Clinton you know. Well, who knows maybe Clinton wasn't that bad? Still trying to figure out Carter. Bad timing?
Some notes on Lincoln from a black former NAACP president, H.K. Edgerton.
QOUTE- "And as for President Lincoln, our American hero, who signed the Emancipation Proclamation. In march of 1861 Abraham Lincoln called all those black leaders in his office and he told them -- Even if I set you free you'll be inferior. You need to get out of the country because I will colonize you. Lincoln proposed the 13th Amendment, being the only President ever to do so. That amendment said Congress would never have the power to interrupt an institution of state. He told the southerners they could keep the slaves if they paid the North a 42% tariff. The South agreed to a 10% tariff but not 42%. So, who I am supposed to blame the institution of slavery on?"
QOUTE-“The only thing Lincoln did was to pit black and white against each other”
According to Edgerton, the greatest Union desertion rates occurred just after
Lincoln announced his Emancipation Proclamation. Edgerton asserted, “Union
Soldiers said they didn’t get into to this war to save the ******s
http://www.ashevilletribune.com/blackrebel.htm
http://www.ashevilletribune.com/the_man_behind_the_rebel_flag.htm
[This message has been edited by wastedmason (edited 05-12-2004).]
You mean that 300,000 Union soldiers did not sacrifice their lives to free the black man? That can't possibly be true.
600,000 americans died in that war. I would hardly say he was a great president. Liberals put Bush at the top of their worst list because we've lost 600 and yet proclaim Lincoln to be the greatest. How does that make sense? At our current rate of loss in the War on Terror it will take almost 1000 years to lose as many people as we lost from 1860 - 1865.
I'm no history expert, or even a history buff, But I think Wilson's inability to let Europe hash out its own problems led to the end of WWI - via WWII.
Okay, after careful consideration, here are my nominations for the worst President by century:
18th Century--John Adams
19th Century--Ulysses S. Grant
20th Century--Warren G. Harding
21st Century--George W. Bush
And here’s why:
18th Century--Adams (Only two presidents during that Century, and he was much worse than Washington).
19th Century--Grant wins as the worst in a close race against Buchanan (could not hold the Union together), Lincoln (caused the War Between the States), Jeff Davis (the only American president to be conquered by a foreign power), Andrew Johnson (first president to be impeached), etc. How a corrupt drunken fool like Grant ever defeated General R. E. Lee, not to mention becoming President, I will never understand.
20th Century--Harding (a crook and a much bigger philandered than Bill Clinton). He is much worse than the other bad 20th Century Presidents like Hoover, Nixon, Carter, and Clinton.
21st Century--Bush (he is the only President so far in this century).
For any of you that are still interested in this topic, here are a couple of interesting articles:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/pl/?id=110005196
And
http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles/silveira49.html
Looks like some of the posters in this thread have similar thoughts as the authors of these articles about who was the worst president.
18th Century--John Adams
19th Century--Ulysses S. Grant
20th Century--Warren G. Harding
21st Century--George W. Bush
And here’s why:
18th Century--Adams (Only two presidents during that Century, and he was much worse than Washington).
19th Century--Grant wins as the worst in a close race against Buchanan (could not hold the Union together), Lincoln (caused the War Between the States), Jeff Davis (the only American president to be conquered by a foreign power), Andrew Johnson (first president to be impeached), etc. How a corrupt drunken fool like Grant ever defeated General R. E. Lee, not to mention becoming President, I will never understand.
20th Century--Harding (a crook and a much bigger philandered than Bill Clinton). He is much worse than the other bad 20th Century Presidents like Hoover, Nixon, Carter, and Clinton.
21st Century--Bush (he is the only President so far in this century).
For any of you that are still interested in this topic, here are a couple of interesting articles:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/pl/?id=110005196
And
http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles/silveira49.html
Looks like some of the posters in this thread have similar thoughts as the authors of these articles about who was the worst president.
ya know,the more I read nJack Bourbon's posts ,the more I think we're kin.
three way tie for worst
Grant - gave off the feeling of a tyrant to a recently subdued south
Jimmy Carter - made the same south look like a bunch of idiots... also a communist kiss-up with no testicular fortitude...next time I see him w/ Castro, I say try him in court for treason.
Bill Clinton - immoral, lying, stands up for nothing, yet pretends to every time a new poll comes out. Also was an example of how far our country has slipped in ideals....they voted him in TWICE because the current climate cares not about right or wrong, only about what benifits self.
p.s. the greatest ? sorry Reagan, GWB, FDR, and Ike....the best ever (even better than Washington himself) was Teddy Roosevelt. the very first conservationalist/president who had the same ideals as many orgs. like Ducks Unlimited, Save the deer so we can shoot the deer.... save the fish so we can catch the fish. Not a tree hugger, but a conservative conservationalist.
------------------
War in the Transvaal 1900: “when the soldiers going to the front were passing another body of soldiers whom they recognized, their greetings used to be, ‘Four-nine-four, boys; four-nine-four;’ and the salute would invariably be answered with ‘Six further on, boys; six further on.’ The significance of this was that, in ‘Sacred Songs and Solos,’a book of hymns, number 494 was ‘God be with you until we meet again;’ and six further on than 494, or number 500, was ‘Blessed Assurance, Jesus is mine.’”
three way tie for worst
Grant - gave off the feeling of a tyrant to a recently subdued south
Jimmy Carter - made the same south look like a bunch of idiots... also a communist kiss-up with no testicular fortitude...next time I see him w/ Castro, I say try him in court for treason.
Bill Clinton - immoral, lying, stands up for nothing, yet pretends to every time a new poll comes out. Also was an example of how far our country has slipped in ideals....they voted him in TWICE because the current climate cares not about right or wrong, only about what benifits self.
p.s. the greatest ? sorry Reagan, GWB, FDR, and Ike....the best ever (even better than Washington himself) was Teddy Roosevelt. the very first conservationalist/president who had the same ideals as many orgs. like Ducks Unlimited, Save the deer so we can shoot the deer.... save the fish so we can catch the fish. Not a tree hugger, but a conservative conservationalist.
------------------
War in the Transvaal 1900: “when the soldiers going to the front were passing another body of soldiers whom they recognized, their greetings used to be, ‘Four-nine-four, boys; four-nine-four;’ and the salute would invariably be answered with ‘Six further on, boys; six further on.’ The significance of this was that, in ‘Sacred Songs and Solos,’a book of hymns, number 494 was ‘God be with you until we meet again;’ and six further on than 494, or number 500, was ‘Blessed Assurance, Jesus is mine.’”
Good topic. First and foremost you can take Bush and Clinton out. It is way too soon to be ranking them. Remember that Truman was hated even worse than Clinton. I think the worst would probably be Andrew Johnson, Grant, LBJ, or Hoover.
------------------
"Then I said to them: What is this high place you go to? It is called Bamah to this day." Ezekiel 20:29
"Why does Auburn consider itself a football power when they have less SEC Champs than Ga Tech (who has not been in the SEC in 40 years) and as many Nat'l Champs as BYU?" Poster on USC message board.
Put your support where your mouth is. Join www.crimsontradition.com
------------------
"Then I said to them: What is this high place you go to? It is called Bamah to this day." Ezekiel 20:29
"Why does Auburn consider itself a football power when they have less SEC Champs than Ga Tech (who has not been in the SEC in 40 years) and as many Nat'l Champs as BYU?" Poster on USC message board.
Put your support where your mouth is. Join www.crimsontradition.com
Latest threads
-
What are yall thoughts about the potential of UNC making a bid for the SEC?- Started by Bama Lee
- Replies: 14
-
-
Trump signs executive order prohibiting 'third-party, pay-for-play payments' to athletes- Started by CrimsonJazz
- Replies: 10
-
