Jackson broke treaty after treaty with the Indians.

Yep. One of the guys who didn't test positive a second time was about the only person in the whole plant who expressed any interest in FREE education. He did a great job - but when I started talking about improving his mind, he realized he didn't want to be doing the same job 10 years down the line.

So, I'm guessing you never sleep. People who sleep aren't thinking clearly.

All in the past. Nothing I can do to change it now. And yes, I believe that ending slavery is more good than allowing the south to secede and retain slavery.
Instead of seething at history, perhaps you should focus your passion on what you can change today to prevent more tyranny. Just a helpful suggestion.

What an odd response…

Are you a statist? Do you believe the government should run rough shod over your life? Do you like the idea of a dictator scripting your life? Do you hate the Constitution? The Bill of Rights?

Lincoln was a tyrant.

More good than otherwise? Are you oblivious? An apologist for despots? Uneducated? Stupid? What among the actions I've listed above do you APPROVE? Murdering war protesters in the streets? Locking up those who won't print a dictator's propaganda? Seriously… what "good" came of Lincoln's murderous war on Americans?

Jackson, the president who marched thousands of Indians westward through the winter (trail of tears) and was a supporter of slavery. The comment was an American Josef Stalin - Jackson fits the type more so than Lincoln, in my opinion.

Wow, you've got to let go.
Do you have the same animosity for Genghis Khan?
Regardless of the reasons or what you think of him, there has been more good that came out of the war between the states than would have occurred otherwise.

Let's see… Lincoln…

1) Imprisoned hundreds of newspaper editors to force them to print his propaganda,
2) Had war protesters shot down in the streets of NYC,
3) Published an "Emancipation Proclamation" that didn't free anyone,
4) Imposed ruinous tariffs on the South to force them to buy manufactured goods from his northern industrial backers,
5) Precipitated a war to force the people of the South to remain under his control (something he called "preserving the union"). Note: Lincoln's war was the equivalent of Germany, Austria and France attacking Great Britain, Portugal and Spain because the latter three have announced they're leaving the European Union. NOTHING in the Constitution authorized Lincoln's War of Northern Aggression to FORCE states to remain in the Union,
6) Was directly responsible for more American deaths and depredation than any other president in history… rivaling American dead from all other wars combined.

Lincoln did all this - and much more - in an attempt to impose slavery on the people of the South and enrich his political backers in the North. John Wilkes Booth was a true American hero who simply arrived a few years too late.

Except death from pot is extremely rare. An overdose is pretty much impossible.

Randy says: "It has been shown that pot makes (some) people stupid and lazy."

And others like Carl Sagan and Wm. F. Buckley were inspired.

It is well known that the old soviet union provided plentiful and cheap vodka to the populace - purportedly to keep them docile. Seemed to have worked for decades.

Sometimes challenging times require strong action. The virtue of Lincoln was that he never planned on keeping the strong actions permanent. The real Stalin, if you want to go that route, would have been Andrew Jackson, and to some degree even Johnson and reconstruction in the south.

As usual, well said OA.
I, for one, believe that more evil and harm to society has occurred as a consequence of being illegal.

I'm not sure that I agree that legalizing drugs would eliminate the black market and form that organized crime. There would be too much temptation for politicians to tax them to a point that illegal sales would still occur. The nature of the illegal activity and organized crime would change some, but not much. In my opinion.

When I was managing a manufacturing plant, we implemented our first "surprise" drug testing. We told everyone it was coming - but not when.

Of the five people we "bagged", one was a worthless POS. He tried to falsify his test, so we were able to fire him (union or not). He was the only one who tested positive for anything but pot - and he had about 4 different drugs in his system. He was also caught mixing meth while driving down the highway BEFORE we fired him - but we didn't know that at the time. Was he a worthless POS because he was a druggie? Or a druggie because he was a worthless POS?

The other four were: 1 average performer, 1 above-average performer and 2 of my top workers, one of whom had been singled out for EXCEPTIONAL contributions to the company the month prior to the drug test.
Fortunately, we were able to retain the four who took the test straight. Unfortunately, two of them tested positive a few months later and had to be fired.

The lesson I draw is that some people use drugs and are out of control. Others use drugs (pot, anyway) and are more worthwhile than those who don't. It seems likely to me that it's not the drugs that screwed people up, but rather the screwed up people who use drugs. The fact that other people use drugs (pot, alcohol) and aren't screwed up advises it's not the drugs that are the problem.

Lincoln - a man with few virtues and the nastiest of vices. America's Josef Stalin.