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

    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.
     
  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: Feb 18, 2008
  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: Mentor

    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
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Since its president's day
  1. Muppets For President (Replies: 10)

  2. Musician for President (Replies: 14)

Loading...