Actually there is only one book listed on Amazon with DiLorenzo as the author, and it is about.................you guessed it! Lincoln!
He is listed as a coauthor with some other guy on a couple of books. One of them claims smoking is good for society. LOL! And I'll bet good Union money he works Lincoln into the sections of the book he worked on! Until you look at it, you can't say they don't deal with Lincoln. With our obsessed DiLorenzo, safe bet to say they do! So where's your so called counter evidence? Nowhere! Now scram.
Let's see...
The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War by Thomas J. Dilorenzo
Cancer Scam: Diversion of Federal Cancer Funds to Politics by James T. Bennett, Thomas J. Dilorenzo
From Pathology to Politics: Public Health in America by James T. Bennett, Thomas J. Dilorenzo
Unhealthy Charities: Hazardous to Your Health and Wealth by James T. Bennett, Thomas J. Dilorenzo
The Food & Drink Police: America's Nannies, Busybodies & Petty Tyrants by James T. Bennett, Thomas J. Dilorenzo
Unfair Competition by James T. Bennett, Thomas J. Dilorenzo
Official Lies: How Washington Misleads Us by James T. Bennett, Thomas J. Dilorenzo
Underground Government: The Off-Budget Public Sector by James T. Bennett, Thomas J. Dilorenzo
Public Health Profiteering by James T. Bennett, Thomas J. DiLorenzo
Destroying Democracy: How Government Funds Partisan Politics by James T. Bennett, Thomas J. Dilorenzo
Hidden politics : "progressive" nonprofits target the states by Thomas J. DiLorenzo, Daniel T. Oliver
Let's see. That makes, what, eleven books? I only see one that is on Lincoln though.
He is listed as a coauthor with some other guy on a couple of books.
I count about 10 other books - significantly more than "a couple."
One of them claims smoking is good for society. LOL!
Do you support a government ban on smoking then? And I'll bet good Union money he works Lincoln into the sections of the book he worked on! Until you look at it, you can't say they don't deal with Lincoln. With our obsessed DiLorenzo, safe bet to say they do!
Making an assumption of Lincoln content upon the grounds that the negative of its absence has not been shown is, once again, faulty logic on your part. You sure have enjoyed taking indulgences into fallacies of late! Must be something in the water up there in yankeeland.