Posted on 05/29/2007 5:28:33 AM PDT by rface
Bush has almost everyone against him now....many FReepers included - but I do think that comparing Bush with Lincoln is not far from the mark...
Lincoln Chafee?
I know it is not your intention... but this thread into a thread that will “trash” both of them. Neither of them deserve it.
Lincoln’s is a 242 year success story.
that’s funny
Which president went to war against citizens of his own country?
I expect the trashing to happen - but it won’t come from me.
Lincolm may have been a Republican, but Lincoln took pride in being a Liberal and basing many of his decisions on the results of polls.
Then why post it? Unless you like seeing both these great men used as a verbal punching bags.
If it helps to make the right decision in most cases: who cares?
because I think Bush has many great qualities .... and rightly deserves the comparison to Lincoln, especially when discussing History, Civil War and Iraq.
Though I’m unhappy about his spending and immigration bill, I respect him for his foresight on battling the war on terror. I think history will remember him for this war more than the other two topics, and like Lincoln, Bush will be remembered (and honored) as a visionary.
Of course, that is, if the damnable anti-Americans don’t thoroughly take over...
I don’t think you can really compare them. Granted while Bush has overseen some of the largest expansion of domestic spending in this nation’s history (not to mention continuing Wilsonian foreign policy), you can’t really compare him to a man who instigated a war against half the nation, continued acts of oppression against the American Indians (ex. Minnesota for one), locked up thousands of citizens, and shut down hundreds of newspapers. Compared to the 16th President, George Bush is pushing sainthood.
Amen. Hence my new tag. The BDS from both sides of the aisle is disgusting and unfair to the man who’s only doing what he believes is best for his country.
Actually, he took on ALL of the confederacy (Toole pun unintended but enjoyed).
There was a Princeton historian on capan who gave an interesting presentation on the anti war democrats who gave Lincoln a fit. Lincoln got lucky when Sherman took Atlanta and put a stop to demands for giving up. The similarities are striking.
There was a Princeton historian on c-span who gave an interesting presentation on the anti war democrats who gave Lincoln a fit. Lincoln got lucky when Sherman took Atlanta and put a stop to demands for giving up. The similarities are striking.
“Of course, that is, if the damnable anti-Americans don’t thoroughly take over...”
And that is the crux of the matter. Right now the education establishment is thoroughly under their contorl. If this doesn’t change, Bush will be worse than McCarthy, another slandered patriot, even by his own partyand fellow conservatives.
Its deja vu all over again.
Let's explore that question. Lincoln came into office and a great many states seceeded from the union. By their own acts, they asserted that they were NOT citizens of the United States. Lincoln, of course, never accepted that line so if you take his perspective you can say he made war against his own citizens. But if you take that perspective, you have to also acknowledge that Lincoln didnt do anything until Fort Sumter was fired on, Washington threatened, etc. Who made war on who?
If you take the southern states rights position, you would have to conclude that he went to war with another nation and conquered and annexed it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.