Abe Lincoln was not the greatest president of all time. George Washington was. And one of the smartest too.sergeriver wrote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/04/24/BL2007042400929_pf.html
"President Bush empathized with Abraham Lincoln on Monday, saying they both stood by their principles in the face of criticism during wartime.
"The president took seniors and advocacy group leaders on a tour of the Oval Office after a meeting on Medicare's drug benefit. . . .
"Bush told the group there is great pressure in Washington to change principles for the sake of political popularity, but he said he would not.
"'It's a struggle for some. It's not for me,' he said.
It's called the Whig party.Smitty5613 wrote:
no, back then the Republican party didnt exist, they were called the Wigs...doctastrangelove1964 wrote:
He was a republican but you need to realize that back then the republicans were the radical party, and the democrats were liberal (no conservatives existed in the US at that time as back then being conservative meant you favored absolute monarchy), it wasn't until the early twentieth century that the democrats were more liberal than the republicans.Smitty5613 wrote:
he wasnt a Republican, he was part of the Wig party....
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2007-05-26 16:47:14)
Thomas Jefferson was the greatest, smartest, bestest President ever. Ronald Regan was a close second.The_Mac wrote:
Abe Lincoln was not the greatest president of all time. George Washington was. And one of the smartest too.sergeriver wrote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/04/24/BL2007042400929_pf.html
"President Bush empathized with Abraham Lincoln on Monday, saying they both stood by their principles in the face of criticism during wartime.
"The president took seniors and advocacy group leaders on a tour of the Oval Office after a meeting on Medicare's drug benefit. . . .
"Bush told the group there is great pressure in Washington to change principles for the sake of political popularity, but he said he would not.
"'It's a struggle for some. It's not for me,' he said.
You like Bush fine, but it doesn't seem right at all.Lotta_Drool wrote:
Sounds about right to me. What is your problem, just hate Bush so much you need to deny the truth.
This is a matter of opinion but look at this.The_Mac wrote:
Abe Lincoln was not the greatest president of all time. George Washington was. And one of the smartest too.sergeriver wrote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/04/24/BL2007042400929_pf.html
"President Bush empathized with Abraham Lincoln on Monday, saying they both stood by their principles in the face of criticism during wartime.
"The president took seniors and advocacy group leaders on a tour of the Oval Office after a meeting on Medicare's drug benefit. . . .
"Bush told the group there is great pressure in Washington to change principles for the sake of political popularity, but he said he would not.
"'It's a struggle for some. It's not for me,' he said.
The division in the nation was so great during Lincoln's presidency that there was a war for secession. Right now in the 21st century, there is a lot of hate for G.W. Bush, but not that much.sergeriver wrote:
I know he was Republican, so? He solved the greatest crisis of the history of US, and he gave freedom to a lot of slaves. He had great respect for civil rights, despite what he had to do during the Civil War. You could say the US exists today as it is thanks to Lincoln.
Curious how closed-minded people are.
I want to see what history shows us.
I still stand by the opinion that he will emerge as one of our nation's strongest presidents.
Well put ATG. Sarge it's simply your perspective and opinion.sergeriver wrote:
By putting his name next to Lincoln's he's being disrespectful to one of the greatest politicians of all time.ATG wrote:
"President Bush empathized with Abraham Lincoln on Monday, saying they both stood by their principles in the face of criticism during wartime."
Not so hard of a stretch there Serge.
I blame Lincoln for setting up a situation that lead to a horrible reconstruction in the South. There were many different things that could have been done, some by Lincoln, some not, that would have kept the US South from being so far behind in education, economy, etc.sergeriver wrote:
You blame Lincoln for the education system in the South, after 140 years? Lol. And blame the racists for the lynchings and killings not Lincoln.
Oh and yes you can blame the racists for the lynchings and killings but the Union pulled out its occuping troops because the US government was bought off and focused their attention to the westward expansion. Instead of maintaining and controlling the South they left it to a network of terrorist organizations, KKK being the most commonly known one. If the Union troops had stayed I don't think that:
a. there would be such a difference between whites and blacks in the following century.
b. the education and economy of the South would be a lot better then it currently is, instead of trapping Southerns (minorities and whites alike) in the South with no way to get improvement besides federal grants, aids, etc. for Universities.
Don't get me wrong I know there are ways to get out of a bad situation, my mother did it and put me in a decent position and I worked hard to get out as well.
Read the history books, not the propoganda books you were given in elementary school.
OK, Lincoln was one of the original members of the Republican party. There was a falling out of the Whigs, which led to the creation of the Republicans.
Lincoln wanted a more compassionate reconstruction period, but happened to be assassinated. Johnson did not share the same views. Unfortunately, Lincoln's reconstruction was lost and the south got screwed (to put it mildly).
Lincoln wanted a more compassionate reconstruction period, but happened to be assassinated. Johnson did not share the same views. Unfortunately, Lincoln's reconstruction was lost and the south got screwed (to put it mildly).
I read history books indeed, I watched documentaries, and tbh the man was a great president. Maybe you would have preferred him to kill all the Confederate leaders. And by calling propaganda the parts of history you don't agree with or you don't like at all, it's a huge mistake.Ridir wrote:
I blame Lincoln for setting up a situation that lead to a horrible reconstruction in the South. There were many different things that could have been done, some by Lincoln, some not, that would have kept the US South from being so far behind in education, economy, etc.sergeriver wrote:
You blame Lincoln for the education system in the South, after 140 years? Lol. And blame the racists for the lynchings and killings not Lincoln.
Oh and yes you can blame the racists for the lynchings and killings but the Union pulled out its occuping troops because the US government was bought off and focused their attention to the westward expansion. Instead of maintaining and controlling the South they left it to a network of terrorist organizations, KKK being the most commonly known one. If the Union troops had stayed I don't think that:
a. there would be such a difference between whites and blacks in the following century.
b. the education and economy of the South would be a lot better then it currently is, instead of trapping Southerns (minorities and whites alike) in the South with no way to get improvement besides federal grants, aids, etc. for Universities.
Don't get me wrong I know there are ways to get out of a bad situation, my mother did it and put me in a decent position and I worked hard to get out as well.
Read the history books, not the propoganda books you were given in elementary school.
Many people feel the problems we are dealing with now really began to heat up in 1993 and that little or no effort to address the problems as they grew exponentially lead us into the very situation we face now.sergeriver wrote:
The difference is Clinton was a pretty good president IMO and GWB is being disrespectful to Lincoln when he is implying that history will judge him as good as Lincoln. Read between the lines.
Drastic cuts in Intelligence and the Military only put us at a severe handicap when we did.
“ Unarmored HumVees “ ?
Be fore 911 the hottest by-partisan debate topic Was
Closing the US Navy’s Bombing Range at Vieques Porto Rico.
Because Why does the military want or need to practice ?
Anyone who was actually a conscious US citizen can remember what politicians lined up on what side of this issue. It has been conveniently forgotten.
I didn't see " that history will judge him as good as Lincoln " as “ the implication “.
I will continue to actually read the lines themselves. Its been my experience here that most of my ( Never ending ) arguments are with someone Re-interpreting something I said, so it fits neatly into his narrow, provincial, stereotype of what he believes are the views of people who’s experiences do not mirror his own...whew
Thomas Jefferson was hardly the best. George Washington laid down a smack load of principals that influenced the course of presidents, as well being the first president to step down from power. No one thought it would work. France was getting ready to invade America at the first sign of civil war, Britain was licking its chops. Washingtom stepped down, and showed people, a Republic can work.Lotta_Drool wrote:
Thomas Jefferson was the greatest, smartest, bestest President ever. Ronald Regan was a close second.The_Mac wrote:
Abe Lincoln was not the greatest president of all time. George Washington was. And one of the smartest too.sergeriver wrote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/04/24/BL2007042400929_pf.html
"President Bush empathized with Abraham Lincoln on Monday, saying they both stood by their principles in the face of criticism during wartime.
"The president took seniors and advocacy group leaders on a tour of the Oval Office after a meeting on Medicare's drug benefit. . . .
"Bush told the group there is great pressure in Washington to change principles for the sake of political popularity, but he said he would not.
"'It's a struggle for some. It's not for me,' he said.
oops... closer than republican tho ...unnamednewbie13 wrote:
It's called the Whig party.Smitty5613 wrote:
no, back then the Republican party didnt exist, they were called the Wigs...doctastrangelove1964 wrote:
He was a republican but you need to realize that back then the republicans were the radical party, and the democrats were liberal (no conservatives existed in the US at that time as back then being conservative meant you favored absolute monarchy), it wasn't until the early twentieth century that the democrats were more liberal than the republicans.
Last edited by Smitty5613 (2007-05-27 09:58:14)
IRAQ DID NOT ATTACK THE USA! Afghanistan did, and the people of the United States (at least any of them with a brain) supported the war in Afghanistan completely. When we went to Iraq, there was absolutely no reason to do it. Oil? Big Fucking DEAL! I would rather pay $10 a gallon for gas than watch any more of our troops getting killed by cowardly soldiers using IEDs. In a couple of tens of years, people will look back on Bush as the stupidest president in the history of the US. And they have every right to because he is. I don't want to offend anybody, but I know I probably am.Smitty5613 wrote:
Lincoln fought a war against part of his own country, people bak then may have hated him for it but in hindsight, he saved the US.... Bush fought a war with another country that attacked us, people now hate h im for it, but some day down the road we will see that fighting them over there instead of on US soil, was better for us....
You probably are. One of the heights of arrogance is claiming to know what peoples' opinions will be in the future.CowboySwim wrote:
IRAQ DID NOT ATTACK THE USA! Afghanistan did, and the people of the United States (at least any of them with a brain) supported the war in Afghanistan completely. When we went to Iraq, there was absolutely no reason to do it. Oil? Big Fucking DEAL! I would rather pay $10 a gallon for gas than watch any more of our troops getting killed by cowardly soldiers using IEDs. In a couple of tens of years, people will look back on Bush as the stupidest president in the history of the US. And they have every right to because he is. I don't want to offend anybody, but I know I probably am.Smitty5613 wrote:
Lincoln fought a war against part of his own country, people bak then may have hated him for it but in hindsight, he saved the US.... Bush fought a war with another country that attacked us, people now hate h im for it, but some day down the road we will see that fighting them over there instead of on US soil, was better for us....
I don't think it's such a bad comparison. Lincoln was an opportunistic scumbag, much like Bush. He was just a lot smarter and more successful at it.sergeriver wrote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/04/24/BL2007042400929_pf.htmlSomeone please explain to me how come this guy compares himself to none other than what many historians believe was the greatest of all U.S. presidents. President Lincoln's legacy is an inspiration for millions today. He was known as honest Abe. Is the man delusional?"President Bush empathized with Abraham Lincoln on Monday, saying they both stood by their principles in the face of criticism during wartime.
"The president took seniors and advocacy group leaders on a tour of the Oval Office after a meeting on Medicare's drug benefit. . . .
"Bush told the group there is great pressure in Washington to change principles for the sake of political popularity, but he said he would not.
"'It's a struggle for some. It's not for me,' he said.
"He showed the group a portrait of Abraham Lincoln. He said Lincoln was unpopular during the Civil War but maintained his belief that all men are created equal.
"'Look what would have happened to history' if Lincoln had abandoned that principle, Bush said."
"Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it." Abraham Lincoln.
If the South had won the war, he'd be known as dishonest Abe. Difficult to tell what the future holds.sergeriver wrote:
President Lincoln's legacy is an inspiration for millions today. He was known as honest Abe.
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2007-05-28 03:58:06)
Lincoln was highly anti-war (prior to the civil war also). Lincoln signed the Homestead Act that created 372,000 farms. He was anti-slavery and vigorously stood by the 13th amendment. In one of his speeches he even recommended giving voting rights to African Americans also.
Lincoln-Douglas debate:
October 15, 1858
That is the real issue. That is the issue that will continue in this country when these poor tongues of Judge Douglas and myself shall be silent. It is the eternal struggle between these two principles -- right and wrong -- throughout the world. They are the two principles that have stood face to face from the beginning of time; and will ever continue to struggle. The one is the common right of humanity and the other the divine right of kings. It is the same principle in whatever shape it develops itself. It is the same spirit that says, "You work and toil and earn bread, and I'll eat it." No matter in what shape it comes, whether from the mouth of a king who seeks to bestride the people of his own nation and live by the fruit of their labor, or from one race of men as an apology for enslaving another race, it is the same tyrannical principle.
Speech at Cincinnati, Ohio
September 17, 1859
I think Slavery is wrong, morally, and politically. I desire that it should be no further spread in these United States, and I should not object if it should gradually terminate in the whole Union.
October 15, 1858
To some Americans, the phrase "all men are created equal" applied only to some. To Lincoln, it applied to all.
And when this new principle [that African Americans were not covered by the phrase "all men are created equal"] -- this new proposition that no human being ever thought of three years ago, -- is brought forward, I combat it as having an evil tendency, if not an evil design; I combat it as having a tendency to dehumanize the negro -- to take away from him the right of ever striving to be a man. I combat it as being one of the thousand things constantly done in these days to prepare the public mind to make property, and nothing but property of the negro in all the States of the Union.
Lincoln To Henry L. Pierce
April 6, 1859
This is a world of compensations; and he who would be no slave, must consent to have no slave. Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it.
August 1, 1858?
As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy. Whatever differs from this, to the extent of the difference, is no democracy.
Lincoln-Douglas debate:
October 15, 1858
That is the real issue. That is the issue that will continue in this country when these poor tongues of Judge Douglas and myself shall be silent. It is the eternal struggle between these two principles -- right and wrong -- throughout the world. They are the two principles that have stood face to face from the beginning of time; and will ever continue to struggle. The one is the common right of humanity and the other the divine right of kings. It is the same principle in whatever shape it develops itself. It is the same spirit that says, "You work and toil and earn bread, and I'll eat it." No matter in what shape it comes, whether from the mouth of a king who seeks to bestride the people of his own nation and live by the fruit of their labor, or from one race of men as an apology for enslaving another race, it is the same tyrannical principle.
Speech at Cincinnati, Ohio
September 17, 1859
I think Slavery is wrong, morally, and politically. I desire that it should be no further spread in these United States, and I should not object if it should gradually terminate in the whole Union.
October 15, 1858
To some Americans, the phrase "all men are created equal" applied only to some. To Lincoln, it applied to all.
And when this new principle [that African Americans were not covered by the phrase "all men are created equal"] -- this new proposition that no human being ever thought of three years ago, -- is brought forward, I combat it as having an evil tendency, if not an evil design; I combat it as having a tendency to dehumanize the negro -- to take away from him the right of ever striving to be a man. I combat it as being one of the thousand things constantly done in these days to prepare the public mind to make property, and nothing but property of the negro in all the States of the Union.
Lincoln To Henry L. Pierce
April 6, 1859
This is a world of compensations; and he who would be no slave, must consent to have no slave. Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it.
August 1, 1858?
As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy. Whatever differs from this, to the extent of the difference, is no democracy.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
There's a couple of people floating around in this thread that claim that Bush will be looked as one of the strongest presidents. I honestly have no idea how they could possibly think that, but never mind.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
You probably are. One of the heights of arrogance is claiming to know what peoples' opinions will be in the future.CowboySwim wrote:
IRAQ DID NOT ATTACK THE USA! Afghanistan did, and the people of the United States (at least any of them with a brain) supported the war in Afghanistan completely. When we went to Iraq, there was absolutely no reason to do it. Oil? Big Fucking DEAL! I would rather pay $10 a gallon for gas than watch any more of our troops getting killed by cowardly soldiers using IEDs. In a couple of tens of years, people will look back on Bush as the stupidest president in the history of the US. And they have every right to because he is. I don't want to offend anybody, but I know I probably am.Smitty5613 wrote:
Lincoln fought a war against part of his own country, people bak then may have hated him for it but in hindsight, he saved the US.... Bush fought a war with another country that attacked us, people now hate h im for it, but some day down the road we will see that fighting them over there instead of on US soil, was better for us....
What I like is the fact that people think we went to Iraq for oil, but guess what? The US's top supplier of oil is Canada, followed by Saudi Arabia! (google it). I think if we invaded Saudi Arabia, you could say the US is after oil, but we didn't and so that theory gets blown out the door.
The only oil Iraq has in the vicinity is Kuwait, and in 1991, Saddam blew up the oil fields in Kuwait, meaning that oil is pretty much inaccessible without an oil pump.
The only oil Iraq has in the vicinity is Kuwait, and in 1991, Saddam blew up the oil fields in Kuwait, meaning that oil is pretty much inaccessible without an oil pump.
Eh - the first to step down... He was the one the whole American Government was based on - so if he had stepped down later, we might still have Clinton right now due to longer terms. The problem with him in my opinion, is that he didn't "fit in" to the Presidency, the Presidency was written right on him...The_Mac wrote:
Thomas Jefferson was hardly the best. George Washington laid down a smack load of principals that influenced the course of presidents, as well being the first president to step down from power. No one thought it would work. France was getting ready to invade America at the first sign of civil war, Britain was licking its chops. Washingtom stepped down, and showed people, a Republic can work.
-konfusion
I doubt he will. Fell down the same rathole as his dad: obsessed with his idea of foreign policy while ignoring affairs at home.ghettoperson wrote:
There's a couple of people floating around in this thread that claim that Bush will be looked as one of the strongest presidents. I honestly have no idea how they could possibly think that, but never mind.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
You probably are. One of the heights of arrogance is claiming to know what peoples' opinions will be in the future.CowboySwim wrote:
IRAQ DID NOT ATTACK THE USA! Afghanistan did, and the people of the United States (at least any of them with a brain) supported the war in Afghanistan completely. When we went to Iraq, there was absolutely no reason to do it. Oil? Big Fucking DEAL! I would rather pay $10 a gallon for gas than watch any more of our troops getting killed by cowardly soldiers using IEDs. In a couple of tens of years, people will look back on Bush as the stupidest president in the history of the US. And they have every right to because he is. I don't want to offend anybody, but I know I probably am.
Wrong... The U.S.'s top supplier of oil is Venezuela. Canada is America's top supplier of energy in general, which includes the total sales of oil, natural gas, uranium, and a few other things.The_Mac wrote:
What I like is the fact that people think we went to Iraq for oil, but guess what? The US's top supplier of oil is Canada, followed by Saudi Arabia! (google it). I think if we invaded Saudi Arabia, you could say the US is after oil, but we didn't and so that theory gets blown out the door.
The only oil Iraq has in the vicinity is Kuwait, and in 1991, Saddam blew up the oil fields in Kuwait, meaning that oil is pretty much inaccessible without an oil pump.
Except that Saudi Arabia is already an ally, so you have no reason to.The_Mac wrote:
What I like is the fact that people think we went to Iraq for oil, but guess what? The US's top supplier of oil is Canada, followed by Saudi Arabia! (google it). I think if we invaded Saudi Arabia, you could say the US is after oil, but we didn't and so that theory gets blown out the door.
The only oil Iraq has in the vicinity is Kuwait, and in 1991, Saddam blew up the oil fields in Kuwait, meaning that oil is pretty much inaccessible without an oil pump.
Personally, I don't think that it was over oil, but your logic isn't exactly strong.
Yes, capt Obvious...so your point isn't exactly clear either.Bubbalo wrote:
Except that Saudi Arabia is already an ally, so you have no reason to.
Personally, I don't think that it was over oil, but your logic isn't exactly strong.