Historians: Lincoln might have supported the stimulus, or something
posted at 9:35 pm on February 11, 2009 by Allahpundit
It must be true. He supported a national bank and wanted to help the working man get ahead; from there, it’s a mere hop, skip, and a jump logically to $800 billion in pork and infrastructure spending.
I realize the media has a certain quota of “Obama is the new Lincoln” hagiographies to file each week, but can we at least spare America’s greatest president (I don’t care what the polls say) the comparison on his birthday? Good lord.
Obama’s situation is different from Lincoln’s, as is the political environment. But historians say their responses to their crises bear striking parallels.
“Both Lincoln and Obama advocated big government and actively believed it could do good,” said Timothy Roberts, professor of American history at Western Illinois University in Moline, Ill.
“The size and complexity of the situation facing Obama would have baffled Lincoln, but he would have embraced Obama’s attempt to balance tax cuts — intended to encourage individual initiative and entrepreneurship — and government spending,” Roberts said…
Lincoln favored a more active government during financial difficulty. And his party favored publicly financed internal improvements — especially for building the nation’s transportation system through canals and railroads. And the first income tax was passed during the Civil War…
Could Obama have taken note? The president’s stimulus proposal to fix the economy calls for massive government spending.
Yes, truly, if not for Lincoln’s example, The One would have to be dragged kicking and screaming towards massive government spending. Even I have more faith in him than to believe he’s approaching a hopelessly complex modern financial crisis by trying to divine Honest Abe’s will. What he’s actually doing, I suspect, is approaching the crisis on the merits, with an eye to dumping dopey Lincoln parallels on the media afterwards to spin his strategy as brilliant. It’s worked so far! Exit question: It’s Darwin’s birthday tomorrow, too. What evolutionary analogy will the press use to compare Obama’s economic acumen to Uncle Charlie’s scientific insight? Something about how the same keen perception that recognized complex variety among the Galapagos turtles is at work in the new TARP?
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
In fact, we preserved the union at the cost of states rights. Nearly a century and a half later later, in some ways, we are continuing that same fight for states rights.
genso on February 11, 2009 at 10:35 PM
That’s true, but even when he traveled with the judge and lawyers for trials, they had a similar sleeping arrangement; ie just part of times back then.
Color me skeptical of that. Lincoln, imo, had the force of will to head of several of the problems that came about via retribution.
Spirit of 1776 on February 11, 2009 at 10:35 PM
So, is Obama Lincolnesque or is Bush?
I’m getting confused now.
fogw on February 11, 2009 at 10:36 PM
Union > States because only 9 of the 13 states were needed to enter into the new Constitutional government. Ie states who disagreed would still be in the new government. With the Articles the states > Union, with Constitution Union > states.
Spirit of 1776 on February 11, 2009 at 10:37 PM
How many voters today believe in states rights? Maybe 5-10%? The “fight” is finished, mostly due to Abe and the socialist Presidents that followed.
The Dean on February 11, 2009 at 10:38 PM
Perhaps. Maybe then he would have been great. As it is, we’ll never know. Of course, in 80 years or so, all of the history books will tell how great Obama was. What will you guys pass down through your children?
genso on February 11, 2009 at 10:38 PM
genso on February 11, 2009 at 10:22 PM
The simple reality that he acted to preserve the whole, The United States, he recognized the greater good (strength) of an intact country and not a dysfunctional coalition. Glad to know you are speaking as an American citizen.
dmann on February 11, 2009 at 10:39 PM
E=mc 10 Trillion.
MB4 on Feb 11,2009 at 10:20PM.
MB4:So true,lol:)
canopfor on February 11, 2009 at 10:39 PM
Each of the 3 want(ed) a huge central government, so I’d compare all of them.
The Dean on February 11, 2009 at 10:40 PM
When his time comes why not just plant him with Lincoln in Springfield. Would save a lot of bucks and the annual haj would be a two for one.
JonRoss on February 11, 2009 at 10:40 PM
Yet states retained their ability to secede which was then forced out of the Confederate state constitutions as a requirement for re-entry into the union after the war.
genso on February 11, 2009 at 10:41 PM
Uh, without his leadership there would probably be no union today? He spoke out against the evils of slavery? He issued an Emancipation Proclamation that established that slaves would be freed as the Union took Confederate territory? Of course, on a lesser scale he established Thanksgiving as a national holiday.
For the record, was Reagan socialist?
amerpundit on February 11, 2009 at 10:41 PM
He’d unravel every riddle
for any individ’le,
In trouble or in pain.
With the thoughts he’ll be thinkin’
he could be another Lincoln
If he only had a brain.
Loxodonta on February 11, 2009 at 10:42 PM
Don’t count your saints until they are beatified.
JonRoss on February 11, 2009 at 10:43 PM
Glapagos turtles. Mmmmmmmmmmmm.
Mike D. on February 11, 2009 at 10:43 PM
Lincoln split rails. Barry cut rails.
Christien on February 11, 2009 at 10:43 PM
In fact, we preserved the union at the cost of states rights. Nearly a century and a half later later, in some ways, we are continuing that same fight for states rights.
genso on February 11, 2009 at 10:35 PM
I’ll still take the preserved union over the alternative, especially considering what the confederate nation would have been.
Bishop on February 11, 2009 at 10:44 PM
He was great. A lot of men would have folded, but he didn’t.
Heh. The beautiful thing about Lincoln is that he is accessible – all of his known writings/speeches/etc are published.
Spirit of 1776 on February 11, 2009 at 10:44 PM
Baffled? Surprised perhaps. Even astonished. But Baffled?
“I certainly am glad you people have Mr. Obama now. There is no way I would ever have had the intelligence to figure a way through this for the survival of the Union.”
eeyore on February 11, 2009 at 10:44 PM
Is anyone else here seriously concerned about the collapse of the dollar when the wretched scum in Congress pass the Generational Theft Bill? How long do you think we have? Peter Schiff, who has been fairly accurate in predicting the things that have happened over the past five years is saying he thinks it will happen this year or early next year. Is the Revolution going to start then?
Does anyone know where I can get cheap 62 grain 5.56 ammo in bulk?
King of the Britons on February 11, 2009 at 10:45 PM
He wasn’t a conservative, at least. I was referring more to the socialist Presidents at the turn of the century such as Teddy Roosevelt, Wilson, and even up to FDR. There’s no reversing those presidents’ radicalism, and socialists Bush/Obama will usher in a new era of “Progressive” governance for the next few decades much like that previous group.
The Dean on February 11, 2009 at 10:46 PM
Guys…why are you afraid to look at this objectively? The war was as much about the economy as any great referendum on maintaining the union. Don’t you think they had PR men then as they do now? To be sure, those sentiments and words inspired the masses on both sides, but that didn’t make them any more sincere then than Obama’s rhetoric now. One of the biggest fears that the northern economy faced was that the south would begin trading with europe instead of the north if they were allowed to leave the union.
genso on February 11, 2009 at 10:46 PM
He said this:
dmann on February 11, 2009 at 10:46 PM
Good point, Bish.
Moreover, the South tried to blackmail the entire country by falsely representing Lincoln’s agenda (ie claimed he would start war with the South). They additionally threatened to succeed, trying to bully the North into a candidate that would have been a NINO. (Specter’s forebearers perhaps?)
That’s a complete violation of the principle of federalism. The South tried to artificially inflate the value of their electors.
Spirit of 1776 on February 11, 2009 at 10:47 PM
He wrote great speeches and delivered them effectively. By that standard, Obama is already a great president.
genso on February 11, 2009 at 10:48 PM
It would probably be easier and less bloody if we just blocked the flow of cocain into the District of Columbia. That would bring em to their knees in no time.
JonRoss on February 11, 2009 at 10:48 PM
Drat. I always thought he was assassinated.
Learn something new…
carbon_footprint on February 11, 2009 at 10:49 PM
Reagan? You’re serious? Good night, TD.
amerpundit on February 11, 2009 at 10:50 PM
A NINO ? Good one. Where I come from it would be a YINO.
JonRoss on February 11, 2009 at 10:50 PM
Obama’s been president for three weeks. Greatness is lightyears away from him, exemplary teleprompter reading notwithstanding.
fogw on February 11, 2009 at 10:50 PM
So…has everyone enjoyed this bullsh*t diversion from our current situation?
genso on February 11, 2009 at 10:51 PM
SORY ! I don’t have spell check and I’ll be damned if I am going to look for my dictionary.
JonRoss on February 11, 2009 at 10:51 PM
Does anyone know where I can get cheap 62 grain 5.56 ammo in bulk?
King of the Britons on February 11, 2009 at 10:45 PM
I’m having trouble finding the 62 grainers in 5.56 but I have found decent bulk .223 in both 62 and 55 grain.
Cabelas sells a bulk .223/55 that I believe is PMC, and also Wolf 5.56/62 but it’s painted ammo and can gum up the ramp.
Have you tried AmmoMan.com?
Bishop on February 11, 2009 at 10:51 PM
Explain how Ronald cut government. Spending went through the roof, and we can’t blame Congress for Reagan deficits because the President’s budgets passed with very little change from the legislature.
The Dean on February 11, 2009 at 10:52 PM
May I ask what you base this on? For a long time (till this century really) the government wasn’t held responsible for economic prosperity. For example, Monroe’s time was referred to a golden era, but he was reelected without difficulty in the middle of very poor economic times.
Re: trade point – interesting but I think that’s retro application. The North had a vested interest in the development of the South’s economy. As Lincoln himself so famously proved, the fathers thought slavery would die as the South developed economically.
Spirit of 1776 on February 11, 2009 at 10:52 PM
Yes, but frequently a historical diversion will give us a hint as to how to proceed from this point.
JonRoss on February 11, 2009 at 10:52 PM
:)
Download FireFox. It has built in spell check.
I was just messing with you.
carbon_footprint on February 11, 2009 at 10:53 PM
Y? Help me out :)
Spirit of 1776 on February 11, 2009 at 10:53 PM
By that standard, Obama is already a great president.
genso on February 11, 2009 at 10:48 PM
Sure, if he ever wrote or orated a great speech, neither of which has yet occurred.
Bishop on February 11, 2009 at 10:54 PM
Yankee in name only.
JonRoss on February 11, 2009 at 10:55 PM
Goodnight all.
Lincoln Haters: you should all forfeit your five dollar bills and pennies.
I guess I will be facing something similar in a few years; no stretch of the imagination to assume we will be seeing Obama quarters or bills in the near future.
carbon_footprint on February 11, 2009 at 10:55 PM
Its a fine point to make and, to be sure, the south was not innocent of all things. They produced the raw materials that the northern manufacturers used to produce goods. They were trying to get a better deal with Europe, especially France, and the northern states didn’t like it. It was tough politics that got out of control. It still doesn’t excuse the loss of states rights.
genso on February 11, 2009 at 10:56 PM
I think those Obama quarters and bills are already secretly funded in the porkulus bill.
JonRoss on February 11, 2009 at 10:57 PM
Trillion Dollar Bill.
fogw on February 11, 2009 at 10:57 PM
Washington or Jefferson should be on all the currency. I agree about the Obama currency. But this country made their bed, and now they’ll have to sit in it.
The Dean on February 11, 2009 at 10:58 PM
Two books and a compliant media. Already, he is in middle-school civics books in Minn or Wisc. How long before they start writing the history books?
genso on February 11, 2009 at 10:59 PM
Argh! Thanks, I should have figured that out. Humor compounded by pronounciation. Well played, sir.
Then they should not have forced the issue. They made a threat and talked themselves into a corner.
Spirit of 1776 on February 11, 2009 at 10:59 PM
but it’ll only be worth $5
genso on February 11, 2009 at 11:00 PM
we will be seeing Obama quarters or bills in the near future.
carbon_footprint on February 11, 2009 at 10:55 PM
Money will be abolished as everything will be owned by The Government.
You will be allotted a padded Mao suit and a pair of flip flops once per year. Food will be a bowl of gruel and a hunk of black bread once per day, dependent of course on how many rice stalks you plant in the paddies during your 14 hour labor shift.
Bishop on February 11, 2009 at 11:00 PM
Greatness is not in him. He’s spending the opening weeks of his presidency paying off the socialist/libtard tools that got him into office and buying off future victim/entitlement voters.
This country is screwed.
BigWyo on February 11, 2009 at 11:00 PM
Well apparently there were a few people back then who disagreed with your hypothesis… and disagreed enough tp put their lives on the line about it…
Romeo13 on February 11, 2009 at 11:01 PM
Sadly, we are paying for it today.
genso on February 11, 2009 at 11:02 PM
Reagan was better than Licoln, so were Monroe, Jefferson, Madison, Washington, and Coolidge.
Gatordoug on February 11, 2009 at 11:02 PM
genso on February 11, 2009 at 10:48 PM
You can’t be serious?
dmann on February 11, 2009 at 11:03 PM
Two books and a compliant media. Already, he is in middle-school civics books in Minn or Wisc. How long before they start writing the history books?
genso on February 11, 2009 at 10:59 PM
Well you got me there. History is written by the victors, and since President Iwon is considered magical, I’d say about two years before it hits full force.
Bishop on February 11, 2009 at 11:05 PM
Except for State sovereignty of course.
Gatordoug on February 11, 2009 at 11:05 PM
Yeah, clearly you are right. However, if you look at the entrance into the contract, ie Constitution, there is no question about what the forefathers intended. There is no out-clause, and the states would be bonded even with 4 No votes.
For secession to occur (from a legal standpoint)there would have to be abridgment of rights, such as enumerated in the DoI.
Spirit of 1776 on February 11, 2009 at 11:05 PM
Has anyone else read Thomas DiLorenzo? If not, you should pick up his book on Lincoln.
The Dean on February 11, 2009 at 11:05 PM
Sorry…was trying to use exaggeration to make a point.
genso on February 11, 2009 at 11:06 PM
I am from southeast Tennessee. Five of my forefathers who were born and raised here fought in the war. Three for the north and two for the south. It wasn’t clear to them apparently as it is still not us. I’m just saying.
JonRoss on February 11, 2009 at 11:07 PM
DiLorenzo has spoken out in favor of the secession of the Confederate States of America, defending its right to secede in a view similar to that of abolitionist Lysander Spooner.
I’m shocked, I tell you, shocked.
Spirit of 1776 on February 11, 2009 at 11:08 PM
You are correct. But that was the contention of the southern states at the and they lacked the representation in Congress to make that point. Kind of the same situation conservatives find themselves in now.
genso on February 11, 2009 at 11:09 PM
The sooner we resort to armed insurrection the better. The clouds of sedition grow heavy on the horizon; ignore reality at your own peril.
dmann on February 11, 2009 at 11:09 PM
The right to secede is given to the states via the Tenth Amendment in the Bill of Rights.
The Dean on February 11, 2009 at 11:11 PM
I would imagine more than one person said those same words 150+- years ago.
genso on February 11, 2009 at 11:11 PM
JonRoss is going to get sleep so he can continue to participate in acts of sedition tomorrow.
JonRoss on February 11, 2009 at 11:12 PM
LOL…. during 1st Bull Run (to use the Northern term for the battle)…
My 6 time Great Grandfather (on Dad’s side) was in a Southern Artillery Battery, which shot at my Mom’s Side 5x Great Grandfather who was in a Union Infantry Regiment… figured it out one day playing Civ War Miniatures after I had done some family military history research….
Kinda makes you look at both sides of the issue…
Romeo13 on February 11, 2009 at 11:14 PM
Well, much like our current Democrats, they were selling fear.
The federal government (of course) had the right to determine what happened in the territories (since it owned the land). The South would be extremely hard-pressed to come up with a list of grievances where the Fed tried to affect the Southern states.
Congress even had, for a long time, a gag order whereby it was illegal to mention slavery in Congress or read petitions that mentioned it. That, of course, is unconstitutional (rights of people to petition shall not be abridged). Thankfully, JQA managed to get that abomination removed.
My point being that the mere fear the South had caused them to do unConsititutional things. It’s pretty hard to claim moral or legal high ground when you break the law to prevent the republic process from bearing out.
Spirit of 1776 on February 11, 2009 at 11:14 PM
genso on February 11, 2009 at 11:11 PM
Exactly!
dmann on February 11, 2009 at 11:15 PM
lol
Spirit of 1776 on February 11, 2009 at 11:15 PM
Allow me to add that that was in his time as a Congressman at the end of his public career, so as to not misrepresent the timing of it.
Spirit of 1776 on February 11, 2009 at 11:17 PM
Ben Franklin said the states had a right to secede as well.
Gatordoug on February 11, 2009 at 11:17 PM
You are obviously well read on this and debate it well. The point is that the travesty was on both sides but the south, as the losers, have carried the burden even to this day. This neither prove nor disprove that Lincoln was a great president. I don’t think he was. Perhaps that is from my southern POV. From the point of the blog, however, for people to compare Obama to Lincoln is not necessarily inaccurate but not for the reasons that they choose.
genso on February 11, 2009 at 11:20 PM
You would prefer an Activist reading of the constitution, then?
The Dean on February 11, 2009 at 11:21 PM
If the States can Accede to the Union, certainly they can Secede from the Union- Benjamin Franklin
Gatordoug on February 11, 2009 at 11:21 PM
That’s interesting, I didn’t know that. Thanks, I’ll see if I can dig up the context.
Spirit of 1776 on February 11, 2009 at 11:23 PM
So did Jefferson. That right only disappeared when it was inconvenient for Dishonest Abe’s absolute power grab.
The Dean on February 11, 2009 at 11:23 PM
Some states, Arizona and NH to name 2, still have these provisions in their state constitutions.
genso on February 11, 2009 at 11:23 PM
Lincoln was not the small government politician current day Conservatives give him credit for being. When a Northern politician asked him why not let the South go, Lincoln replied, “Where will we get our revenues from”
Gatordoug on February 11, 2009 at 11:23 PM
It was not an uncommon belief in those days, or later in te 1800′s. Several new England States considered it
Gatordoug on February 11, 2009 at 11:24 PM
Exactly. Then, as now, its about the economy.
genso on February 11, 2009 at 11:25 PM
Thanks for the compliment. I agree with you wrt: travesty. I was born in the South myself. Lincoln’s greatness must vary with one’s own values, I suspect. Some men call him a tyrant, I think he was a melancholy man who made the decisions he thought best for America. I do believe his own assertion that his view was derived from the DoI is the most fair judgment of him politically.
Spirit of 1776 on February 11, 2009 at 11:27 PM
Secede: What do we say to Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and all other ex-Soviet satellites? Sorry..dudes, our need to embrace the suck of Obama comes at your expense, nice knowing you while we had the chance…good luck and Godspeed!
dmann on February 11, 2009 at 11:28 PM
I respect your right to that opinion. Suffice to say that the comparison to Obama does not touch on that aspect.
genso on February 11, 2009 at 11:29 PM
Source
The Dean on February 11, 2009 at 11:30 PM
No, that would be absurd. I just thought if you were going to read through to the 10th Admendment, you might have already pass Section 8: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
Insurrection: an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government
Ah, they did indeed and they were roundly rebuked in the public square for such mercenary thinking.
I agree with you here, but the priorities were different then. Even the most pro-small government advocate must acknowledge that the small must have some power. We are obviously top-heavy now, but not always been that way.
Spirit of 1776 on February 11, 2009 at 11:32 PM
No argument there.
Spirit of 1776 on February 11, 2009 at 11:32 PM
That doesn’t cover the right to peacefully secede.
The Dean on February 11, 2009 at 11:42 PM
No, the NE States were not roundly rebuked by all, by some yes, secession was a very controversial issue for the first decades of the Union. Many good and wise people on both sides disagreed on it.
See what Madison AND Jefferson thought about States Rights http://www.bartleby.com/65/ke/KentuckyNV.html
Gatordoug on February 11, 2009 at 11:49 PM
There are several big differences between Lincoln and Obama’s approaches to national power. To understand Lincoln’s viewpoint on the fiduciary power of the Federal Government, you must examine carefully the various Republican Party platforms through the years up to and including 1863. In each of these platforms, a common thread runs — that the power of the Federal Government should be used, not to fund individual efforts at commerce (such as companies or private banks), but instead to fund interstate public works which would multiply the capability of the several states to conduct commerce.
Lincoln and the Republicans were proponents of the Transcontinental Railway. Indeed, both the Democratic and Republican Party platforms had planks in favor of Federal aid to complete the Railway, and the Republican platform went further by having planks for Federal aid to enable more efficient riverine and ocean commerce. This certainly puts Lincoln in favor of infrastructure works like the Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways or the New Deal’s CCC and WPA.
In Lincoln’s day, the powerhouse economies were in Europe, and America’s native industries needed protection in order to grow; hence Lincoln was a supporter of tariffs in industries where we needed a native presence. Today, our economy is mature, and it is a measure of that maturity that our recession is far lighter than what is happening in many other parts of the world. In fact, China at this point has more need for tariffs than we do, since we are so much more advanced technically. Lincoln certainly would not hobble our native industry’s need for raw materials by erecting tariffs — our position is quite different than in his day.
A “Bank of the United States” was, in Lincoln’s mind, an essential rudder for the economy. There was a difference between Lincoln’s view of such a bank and what Obama would do with such a bank. Lincoln’s history included a series of bank failures in the 1830′s linked to land speculation, and the damage to the economy was similar to the failures banks underwent just a few months ago due to real estate speculation. Lincoln’s view of such a bank was the prevention of the excesses of speculation, while Obama’s view is to encourage those excesses — witness what side of fiscal responsibility Obama as an attorney took with respect to forcing Citibank to commit to the regime of “zero down” excesses promulgated by Freddie Mac with the full faith and power of the Federal Government.
With regard to the “welfare state”, Lincoln did indeed expand the size of the Federal Government, but he did it in response to a war forced upon that Government. His idea of the general welfare was to provide an environment in which individuals could excel (by building communications and defense infrastructure), but certainly did not extend to the state the requirement to provide an individual’s upkeep other than “To care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and orphan”.
Lincoln actually created such a bank during the war, and it operated under the Department of the Treasury, issuing “Greenbacks”. Hence, the issuance of money during the Civil War was directed by the Executive. At the present time, the Federal Reserve Bank System is responsible for the issuance of currency, and the Executive has no say in its policies. For a parallel to occur, Obama must somehow become empowered to issue currency aside from the Federal Reserve.
I cannot see Lincoln as a Representative supporting the stimulus bill. After all, his party put forth this plank against the Democrats:
Lincoln certainly understood that once the Government begins bribing the citizens from its treasury as the Democrats are wont to do, our entire system of government suffers as a result.
unclesmrgol on February 11, 2009 at 11:53 PM
Since the Alien and Sedition Acts were controversial for a variety of reasons, in my honest opinion, this is best answered by citing the debate over Hamilton’s bank.
Hamilton stated that the assumption of states’ debt by the federal government would fit the intent and purpose of the new government. This was a necessity for purposes of foreign policy. (Setting aside any view of Hamilton himself) Washington asked for commentary from his two secretaries to determine the constitutionality of such a plan. Jefferson (in accord to what you linked here) was against it, but after both had submitted their arguments, Jefferson himself softened his answer. From that very point on, the Union had assumed in practice was 9/13 meant legally. From the first presidency on the Union > the States. When Jefferson took the office, he reinforced that fact by the LPurchase.
Spirit of 1776 on February 11, 2009 at 11:58 PM
Regardless, thanks for the conversation; I’ve got to call it a night.
Spirit of 1776 on February 11, 2009 at 11:59 PM
I would add that the right of secession was taught at West POint in the 1800′s this is the textbook used http://www.constitution.org/wr/rawle-00.htm
Gatordoug on February 12, 2009 at 12:11 AM
Ummm, wrong. Washington was our greatest president, not Lincoln. And if he really would have supported this crap, he’d be wrong too.
Since when is being President of the United States entry into sainthood? Lincoln was as human as anyone and made his share of mistakes. Saying Lincoln would have supported this crap doesn’t make it right.
Common Sense on February 12, 2009 at 12:31 AM
Doesn’t matter. Lincoln’s evolved viewpoint on the permanence of the Union prevailed over Taney’s, and the 14th Amendment locked it into the Constitution.
So, for better or for worse, I am a “citizen of the United States” rather than a “citizen of these United States”.
unclesmrgol on February 12, 2009 at 12:56 AM
Darwin’s dead. His DNA has been completely deprogrammed ever since. And by the way, where did the software instruction come from for a DNA strand to have?
And how was this here designed?
Sorry, Charlie.
Kokonut on February 12, 2009 at 1:53 AM
Modern historians bend history to fit their point of view. To suggest that Lincoln would somehow have supported the porkulus bill doesn’t make it so. You can surmise it, but you can never know because, well, Abe isn’t here to ask.
You can combine photos of Lincoln and Obama all day long and it will never show a melding of their intellect, understanding or compassion for their fellow man. Other than both were elected President, there is no connection between the two…yet.
SKYFOX on February 12, 2009 at 5:51 AM
I´m no historian, but it is impossible to imagine almost any current Democrat ever saying something like this:
“Property is the fruit of labor, property is desirable, is a positive good in the world. That some should be rich, shows that others may become rich, and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise. Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another; but let him labor diligently and build one for himself.”
- Lincoln, 1864.
el gordo on February 12, 2009 at 6:17 AM
PBS Lincoln Special denigrated Lincoln the Man by ignoring all CONTEXTUAL CONTENT of his thoughts.
We all understand the difference between the Man and the Myth.
Of course, by using the DNC progressive socialist bus to run over Lincoln, PBS can resuscitate the dead into their monster Obama, AS IF we will ever see BHO as the “new” Lincoln.
maverick muse on February 12, 2009 at 7:55 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »