Will George W. Turn Out to Be the Lincoln of His Time?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Adam's Apple, Mar 27, 2006.

  1. Adam's Apple
    Offline

    Adam's Apple Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2004
    Messages:
    4,092
    Thanks Received:
    445
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +447
    Is Bush Following in Lincoln's Footsteps?
    By Michael Lewis, Human Events
    March 24, 2006

    The eerie parallels between Lincoln and George W. Bush are not small. Bush and Lincoln both conducted wars that were undermined and parodied by the press; after all if the press reported the news and not their opinion of the news, they might lose their reader base, which relies on the New York Times editorial page to feed them the right opinions.

    Both presidents had low “approval ratings.” It occurred to me that every Republican president with the exception of Teddy Roosevelt and Eisenhower has been drastically unpopular despite the landslides of 1968, 1972, 1980, 1984, 1988 and 2004. In 2004, Bush won by the widest margin since 1984, garnering nearly 52% of the vote. If you believed the polls, logic would demand that half of those who voted for Bush in 2004 now think he is a total moron. I doubt it. The Times uses polls of their liberal readership to prove their editorial positions.

    Bush’s March 21 press conference was right out of a “Commander in Chief” episode. Liberal windbag Helen Thomas accused Bush of wanting to go to war since 2000. The President was clearly irked by her idiocy, and responded adamantly that no president wants to go to war. In yet another attempt to slam Bush, the press corps bombarded him with questions that called into question the purpose in Iraq, stating that they have no reason which they can fathom for being there. Funny thing is, I can think of about a million and one reasons to be there; most of them are in mass graves and one is on trial. Some are sitting in a scrap yard as former aircraft, and still more are probably in Syria.

    for full article: http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=13479
     
  2. Avatar4321
    Offline

    Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    70,537
    Thanks Received:
    8,161
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +12,153
    I dont think anyone likes war. And I don't think the President is one of the few who does.

    People need to learn that sometimes war is necessary. Honestly I wish it never was. I wish people would live in peace with each other. But they cannot so long evil exists in the world.
     
  3. BaronVonBigmeat
    Offline

    BaronVonBigmeat Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,185
    Thanks Received:
    160
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +160
    Well, I agree that Bush has plenty in common with Lincoln. Of course, I mean that comparison as an insult to Saint Lincoln, not a compliment to Bush.

    The first point I'd like the raise is, it was a war to save the union, but the reason for wanting to save the union (which was never meant to be indivisible) was that the south produced most of the tax revenues. Lincoln had all sorts of proto-socialist plans (he advocated Henry Clay's "American System") and was not about to let his source of revenue slip away.

    Secondly, is he seriously saying that it's okay to change reasons for a war midstream, and we should just shrug our shoulders and accept it? Clinton ordered bombings because of Monicagate, but hey if he says it's about "punishing hate" or "suppressing tyranny" or whatever, then by golly he must be right! Lincoln's emancipation proclamation was a cheap ploy to start a slave revolt and hurt confederate morale. Note it's very careful wording--it only liberated slaves specifically in areas the union didn't control!

    Yes, and for the same reason FDR is regarded as a great president by socialists in the history profession--he vastly expanded the power of the federal government.

    She is a liberal windbag; however the planning for an Iraq war was already underway during the Clinton administration. Quite frankly, an Al Gore administration probably would have invaded Iraq too. He would have put a slightly more multilateral veneer on it, and gullible liberals would have applauded it.

    A million? I fairly certain this has been thoroughly debunked. Supply-side economist Jude Waninski comes to mind.

    I for one would like to hear Mr. Bush renounce Skull and Bones as well as freemasonry if he is so christian. I think he's acting, quite frankly.

    Christian socialism is still socialism. Cut these unconstitutional programs and let us keep the money to give to private charities. I wonder how many of these people are drinking mainly because their huge tax burden drives them to it?

    ahahahahhahahahahahahah

    A cold, calculating president does not say such things to boost his poll numbers. Riiiiight. An aloof, out-of-touch elitist president does not pretend to be a man of the people by biting his lip and whimpering, "I feel your pain". Sure!

    What is unpopular is not always right.
     
  4. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    No--you should not just shrug you shoulders and accept it. You should lose the "mommy mommy, they called me unpatriotic!! " tone and disagree by using respectful and honest debate. Maybe adults would listen to you.
     
  5. BaronVonBigmeat
    Offline

    BaronVonBigmeat Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,185
    Thanks Received:
    160
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +160
    Huh? Where was I whining about being called unpatriotic?

    Besides, if someone's throwing around the "unpatriotic" bit, I think it's safe to say that respect and honesty have already left the debate.
     
  6. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    Sorry--I lumped you with those who feel unfairly judged because they don't agree with the Bush policy of pre-emptive strikes an those who wish to harm Americans and the illegals that live here. I was just proposing honest debate and respectful interchange of ideas. Liberal rhetoric is anything but honest or respectful yet for some reason they think they somehow deserve respect simply because they have different ideas. A monkey has different ideas. (no offense to my primate buddies)
     
  7. rtwngAvngr
    Offline

    rtwngAvngr Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    15,755
    Thanks Received:
    511
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +511
    But liberals REALLY ARE unpatriotic. They think america is the bad guy in most situations.
     
  8. theim
    Offline

    theim Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,628
    Thanks Received:
    234
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Madison, WI
    Ratings:
    +234
    What in government supported faith-based charities is in conflict with "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

    I'll save you some time: nothing.
     
  9. theim
    Offline

    theim Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,628
    Thanks Received:
    234
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Madison, WI
    Ratings:
    +234
    Not at all. Look at the definitions of patriotic "adj: Feeling, expressing, or inspired by love for one's country." and unpatriotic "adj : showing lack of love for your country.".

    The majority of visible liberals are quite obviously more in the camp of the former than the latter. Go to Democratic Underground. "Patriotic" there is regarded as an offensive slur. Clearly, honestly and logically they are unpatriotic. Only by a torturous anti-logic of "I say I hate America because I really love America and want it to change" can liberals claim any tenous amount of patriotism.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  10. BaronVonBigmeat
    Offline

    BaronVonBigmeat Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,185
    Thanks Received:
    160
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +160
    What in my post makes you think I was referring to the 1st amendment? I was merely commenting on socialism in general. Using federal funds for private charities is a violation of the 10th amendment, however.
     

Share This Page