Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Since its president's day

  1. Feb 18, 2008 #1
    I thought it would be interesting to start a thread on who do you think is the most overrated president in the history of the United states . I'd put my money on Abraham Lincoln. He makes george w bush look like mother theresa, before George Bush tried to act like a saint. (i.e, giving money to africa) He is a George Wallace, Benito Mussulino and Saddam Huessein rolled into one package. The man was an absolute tyrant. He placed people in prison who spoke out against his policies, and he order troops to burned and pillage southern towns. The only good thing he ever did was free slaves; After he freed the slaves he wanted to deport blacks because he believe blacks would not assimilate to western culture. In to think that we used to celebrate this tyrant's birthday. What an awful human being he was
    Well, thats my opinion. What's yours?

    Isn't Lincoln like the only president we have a statue of? I could be wrong Notice in a lot of communist/totalitarian countries, they always have a statue of their leader?
     
    Last edited: Feb 18, 2008
  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 18, 2008 #2
    There's a statue of Washington in my college. Of course, I go to the University of Washington, so that might be it.

    Anyway, I'd say Reagan. He wasn't that great. He was probably the biggest traitor this country has seen until W came to office. And yet people want to fellate him like he was Jesus or something.
     
  4. Feb 18, 2008 #3

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Even though this is GD, given the statements made about Lincoln I think some sources are in order. We don't want a thread dedicated to unproven or crackpot claims.
     
  5. Feb 18, 2008 #4
    They are not crackpot claims. The general public has just been misled about ' Honest Abe' . Adolf hitler said if you tell a lie long enough and wide enough , people will believe it. Anyway here are some sources I've looked at

    The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War (Hardcover)
    by Thomas Dilorenzo (Author)

    Shattering the Icon of Abraham Lincoln by Sam Dickson of journal of historical review

    Abraham Lincoln: The Man Behind the Myths by historian Stephen B. Oates

    Sorry , I probably should have posted this thread in the Political section of PF
     
  6. Feb 18, 2008 #5

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Yikes, Ivan - you didn't take high school history!?!? This is basic stuff. Maybe they used to gloss-over it when teaching Lincoln. Anyway, here's one (and it's a biggie) - the writ of habeas corpus: http://www.civil-liberties.com/pages/did_lincoln.htm [Broken]

    Lincoln is a lot of peoples' favorite Presidents, but he did an awful lot of things that were far beyond what people accuse Bush of.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 3, 2017
  7. Feb 18, 2008 #6
    The hegemonistic capitalist roaders who have infected our dialog with sexist, racist, and bourgois codewords must now face the reality of a growing dissatisfaction among the intelligentsia. We must not repeat the mistakes of the past by relying on the literal meaning of the written word in our struggle against a reactionary view of the record. The collectivist view can be applied in this case, as in all other cases, to reunredeconstruct the subjective past. A conceptual disconnect arises to erode the boundary between conventional and over-simplified developmental critique on the one hand, and the robust analysis that derives from a consistent view of postmodern theory on the other. This two-fisted approach will annihilate the misconceptions that arise in the objective view of history.
     
  8. Feb 18, 2008 #7

    D H

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Yet another example that postmodernism writing (or at least bad parodies of it) should be banned here at PF. Seriously, we ban any and all discussions on religion; how is postmodernism not a religion?
     
  9. Feb 18, 2008 #8
    Do you mean to ban the bad parodies of the nonsense, but allow the actual nonsense?
     
  10. Feb 18, 2008 #9
    From the Wikipedia article Thomas Dilorenzo:
    “He is … an affiliated scholar of the League of the South Institute, the research arm of the League of the South…”
    From the Wikipedia article League of the South:
    “The League of the South is a Southern nationalist organization whose ultimate goal is ‘a free and independent Southern republic.’”


    Hmm… now let me think, whyever would someone like that be critical of Abraham Lincoln?

    Benzoate, I've got this really nice bridge I could sell you at a premium price… maybe you and Russ could go in on it halfsies…
     
  11. Feb 18, 2008 #10

    D H

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    The postmodernism nonsense is religion. Ban it. However, it looks like this particular collection of tripe is not postmodernist tripe. It is rather southern tripe by someone who thinks the north cheated. See post #9 by Captain Quasar.
     
  12. Feb 18, 2008 #11
    Actually, I was referring to what you wrote, not what they wrote.
     
  13. Feb 18, 2008 #12

    D H

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    What you wrote is either postmodern writing which you take to be truth or a bad parody of postmodern writing. I assumed the latter to be the case. Now I'm not so sure ...
     
  14. Feb 18, 2008 #13

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    There was also a declared war. The Constitution gives broad Presidential powers in a time of war.

    Is this what you're defending? Okay, got it. I will be quoting you on that one.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 3, 2017
  15. Feb 18, 2008 #14
    This is what you wrote:

    The way I read this, you are saying that you would be willing to ban the parody, without banning the postmodernism.
     
  16. Feb 18, 2008 #15

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I didn't say they were, but you make highly inflammatory statements with no references. And in fact I just had to delete a post that took your lead right into the gutter.

    We need sources that we can all look at here. The issue is one of context. I think your take on this is ludicrous and indefensible. For example, I was not aware of Lincoln torturing athletes who didn't perform well enough. Nor was I aware of him using Southern soldiers for monsterous medical experiments. Nor am I aware of gas chambers or otherwise being used for mass executions based on race.
     
    Last edited: Feb 18, 2008
  17. Feb 18, 2008 #16

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Anyone who can't tell the difference between Hitler and Lincoln should go back to high school.

    Also, to whom it may concern, trashing Lincoln in an effort to defend the Bush is a new low.
     
    Last edited: Feb 18, 2008
  18. Feb 18, 2008 #17

    Astronuc

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Um, wasn't that Joeseph Goebbels, Hitler's main PR man? The phrase is apparently frequently attributed to Hitler.

    Reagan and GWBush are certainly over-rated. Saddam Hussein was Reagan's then Bush Sr's boy and proxy against Iran, but he had a falling out with Bush.

    Birds of a feather - http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
     
    Last edited: Feb 18, 2008
  19. Feb 18, 2008 #18
    Well, comparing Lincoln to Hitler is preposterous, but I'd certainly say he's overrated. Maybe not as much so as FDR though.
     
  20. Feb 18, 2008 #19
    I believe the economic, and psychological impact of the scorched earth policy was thought by Generals Sherman and Grant to be the only way to win the war. It wasen't Lincoln who thought of this, although he agreed with it.
     
  21. Feb 18, 2008 #20

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Lincoln inherited an untenable situation, in which his predecessor had ignored the conditions leading to the almost inevitable dissolution of the country. He was very troubled by the death and suffering on both sides of the Civil War. He was not perfect - none of us are, but you only have to read the Gettysburg address to understand how heavily the war fell on him.

    If Lincoln had a major fault, it was in failing to replace his generals when they delayed and dithered at a time when the Union Army had numerical superiority, better supplies and weapons, etc. They failed to press their early advantage, leading to a disastrous war that lasted years instead of (possibly) months.

    Here is a (very!) condensed time-line. http://www.abrahamlincolnassociation.org/Documents/Lincoln and His Generals.doc
     
    Last edited: Feb 18, 2008
  22. Feb 18, 2008 #21

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    The North had some supply problems, but nothing like those of the Confederacy. It's likely that burning cities was seen as the most effective means to deny the Confederate army shelter, supply, and other benefits, while throwing the region into disarray so that civilian support of that army would be hampered. Also, taking and holding a city (the other logical way of denying the Confederate Army access to it) would have required far more troops than the Union had available.
     
    Last edited: Feb 18, 2008
  23. Feb 18, 2008 #22
    I wasn't comparing hitler to lincoln. Lincoln was not like hitler. But Lincoln was no saint. I was actually comparing Lincoln to Saddam and Mussolini. I am only referring to Hitler's quote, Because Many people in generally believe what they hear and what they see and do not bother to research into these people .
     
  24. Feb 18, 2008 #23

    OmCheeto

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I agree. I stopped following politics after Reagan was elected. If American's could elect that idiot, they could elect another. And they did. And I'm not talking about GHWB or Bill.

    Reagan is the classic example of why I don't think the ability to be a good public speaker should get someone into the white house. Unfortunately, little quips like; "There you go again", seem to impress people more than substance or the truth.

    I wouldn't go as far as calling Ronny or George traitors. Hypocrites maybe.
    National debt was pretty much level at 2 trillion dollars from 1950 until Reagan showed up. When he left it was it was at 4 trillion. When Bush Sr. left it was about 5 trillion. When Bill left it was around 6 trillion, but was going down for the first time since Reagan took over. Now with Bush on the way out, it's over 9 trillion.

    With all their rhetoric about democrats being the "tax and spend" party, Ronny and George did really good jobs of sticking their heads in the sand and spending.

    But this thread is about who's the most "over-rated". hmmmm....... I would never accuse GW of being over-rated, so he's out. I never expected anything out of Reagan and was not disappointed, so he's out. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that this is a silly premise for a thread and will only yield slanderous and opinionated nonsense. But if I had to make a choice it would have to be Ronny.:tongue2:
     
  25. Feb 18, 2008 #24
    Ivan, you do not believe that Lincoln was a George Wallace of the 1800's ; Well here are some racist quotes from him

    "You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other 2 races. Even when you cease to be slaves, you are yet far removed from being placed on an equality with the white race. you are cut off from many of the advantages which the other race enjoys. It is better for us both to be separated."-Abraham Lincoln, during a meeting with free Negro leaders, at the White House, August, 1862

    "I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races-that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the 2 races living together on terms of social or political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion that I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position that the Negro should be denied everything."

    And there is plenty of more quotes from library trivialibrary .com
     
  26. Feb 18, 2008 #25

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Me, too. If you asked people what they would do to a person who stole weapons from our military and secretly sold them to an avowed enemy of our country, they would probably say "shoot the treasonous creep". Instead Reagan got an airport named after him.
     
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook