How would you rate Obama vs. Lincoln?

(08-06-2009 11:18 AM)democrat Wrote:  How would you rate Obama vs. Lincoln?

You don't know s*** do you?

Lincoln had to deal with the separation of our country; it took military action for unification.

No other president has ever, or hopefully will ever face that.

(08-06-2009 09:19 PM)Franks Wrote:  Lincoln had to deal with the separation of our country; it took military action for unification.

No other president has ever, or hopefully will ever face that.

Actually there is a great separation and battles being fought, and once again the middle/lower class are catching most of the flack.
This time the battle is between the industrialist against the bankers. Instead of cannons their collapsing economies, brother against brother in a war they don't understand.
These rich guys vs. those rich guys, they are battling for control of the global profits for the next few years or so.

But it's still better than communism, communism is a tool for a dictator to get 90% of the profits for themselves, leaving little to nothing for the "workers" he says he represents.

At least Lincoln's war was more black and white.....no pun intended.

Tom

(08-07-2009 06:40 PM)farmerTom Wrote:  

(08-06-2009 09:19 PM)Franks Wrote:  Lincoln had to deal with the separation of our country; it took military action for unification.

No other president has ever, or hopefully will ever face that.

Actually there is a great separation and battles being fought, and once again the middle/lower class are catching most of the flack.
This time the battle is between the industrialist against the bankers. Instead of cannons their collapsing economies, brother against brother in a war they don't understand.
These rich guys vs. those rich guys, they are battling for control of the global profits for the next few years or so.

But it's still better than communism, communism is a tool for a dictator to get 90% of the profits for themselves, leaving little to nothing for the "workers" he says he represents.

At least Lincoln's war was more black and white.....no pun intended.

Tom

There is no such 'parallel' with Lincoln and Obama.
Just a stupid white boy's dream at appeasement...

(08-07-2009 07:34 PM)Buckeye Wrote:  

(08-07-2009 06:40 PM)farmerTom Wrote:  

(08-06-2009 09:19 PM)Franks Wrote:  Lincoln had to deal with the separation of our country; it took military action for unification.

No other president has ever, or hopefully will ever face that.

Actually there is a great separation and battles being fought, and once again the middle/lower class are catching most of the flack.
This time the battle is between the industrialist against the bankers. Instead of cannons their collapsing economies, brother against brother in a war they don't understand.
These rich guys vs. those rich guys, they are battling for control of the global profits for the next few years or so.

But it's still better than communism, communism is a tool for a dictator to get 90% of the profits for themselves, leaving little to nothing for the "workers" he says he represents.

At least Lincoln's war was more black and white.....no pun intended.

Tom

There is no such 'parallel' with Lincoln and Obama.
Just a stupid white boy's dream at appeasement...

I didn't say their was a 'parallel', you did. I suggested a similar separation:
> industrialist northern interest vs agricultural backed southern interest
> industrialist again vs financial sector leaders

I will say there are two lines that run close together though: Lincoln was a Republican sided with the industrialist, and Obama is a Democrat and apparently aliened with the financial sector leaders. They have both chosen sides, they are not mediators.
Tom

obama can only be compared to a turd, and he does not hold a candle to one as far as:

Intelligence
Ethics
Morals
Vision
Honesty

or anything else

In reality it's way too early too rate Obama Historically speaking.

I stand by the statematement that no other President has had to deal with what President Lincoln did.

What we face today pales in comparison to Lincoln having too send Armies into the Seccession States to restore the Union. We lost more Americans in the Civil War than all other wars combined.

(08-08-2009 08:33 PM)Franks Wrote:  In reality it's way too early too rate Obama Historically speaking.

I stand by the statematement that no other President has had to deal with what President Lincoln did.

What we face today pales in comparison to Lincoln having too send Armies into the Seccession States to restore the Union. We lost more Americans in the Civil War than all other wars combined.

I agree with that and also think a better comparison would be Obama and Roosevelt. I think both of them came into office with an economic motive as their primary objective. Both of them tried to introduce a 'New Deal'. But we are several years away from seeing the results of Obama's efforts.

Tom

I agree Tom.

(08-14-2009 08:43 PM)nigga Wrote:  shut da hell up, cracka! obama iz mo black den abe, ayun dat makes em betta! abe wuz a stupid racist honkey! so wuz frank d., nigga. da only "new deyal" i waont iz sum bling bling ta spend on crack an muh golden chains!

You mean to say that you are a lower class (extremely lower) white red neck truck driver who lives in central Texas that has 4th grade equivalent education and you're trying to make a racist joke..... ha ha ha, doesn't this post make you look goofy. I'm afraid that you are proof that all people aren't going to evolve to the next level of human existence. Skin color, ethnic background, religion, sex, and physical appearance are not the limiting factor for you being left behind......... it's because outside your little support group no one really wants to be around you.

Good luck to you... in the near future your going to need it.
Tom

---

(08-14-2009 08:17 PM)Franks Wrote:  I agree Tom.

I don't agree with all the bailout funds going out though. One thing I did like was the idea to rebuild the infrastructure of the U.S.. What happened to that, was it just a passing 'fancy;? Those bridges are going to fall down, those freeways need to be upgraded. Maintenance & improvements can't be put on a back shelf not when peoples lives depend on them.
Tom

(08-07-2009 07:50 PM)farmerTom Wrote:  

(08-07-2009 07:34 PM)Buckeye Wrote:  

(08-07-2009 06:40 PM)farmerTom Wrote:  

(08-06-2009 09:19 PM)Franks Wrote:  Lincoln had to deal with the separation of our country; it took military action for unification.

No other president has ever, or hopefully will ever face that.

Actually there is a great separation and battles being fought, and once again the middle/lower class are catching most of the flack.
This time the battle is between the industrialist against the bankers. Instead of cannons their collapsing economies, brother against brother in a war they don't understand.
These rich guys vs. those rich guys, they are battling for control of the global profits for the next few years or so.

But it's still better than communism, communism is a tool for a dictator to get 90% of the profits for themselves, leaving little to nothing for the "workers" he says he represents.

At least Lincoln's war was more black and white.....no pun intended.

Tom

There is no such 'parallel' with Lincoln and Obama.
Just a stupid white boy's dream at appeasement...

I didn't say their was a 'parallel', you did. I suggested a similar separation:
> industrialist northern interest vs agricultural backed southern interest
> industrialist again vs financial sector leaders

I will say there are two lines that run close together though: Lincoln was a Republican sided with the industrialist, and Obama is a Democrat and apparently aliened with the financial sector leaders. They have both chosen sides, they are not mediators.
Tom

This is for stupid white boy comment. Why is it always white "boy"and black "man" This seems to be a racist comment suggesting that white men are less of a man than a black man.

(08-20-2009 05:02 PM)TheAncients Wrote:  

(08-07-2009 07:50 PM)farmerTom Wrote:  

(08-07-2009 07:34 PM)Buckeye Wrote:  

(08-07-2009 06:40 PM)farmerTom Wrote:  

(08-06-2009 09:19 PM)Franks Wrote:  

There is no such 'parallel' with Lincoln and Obama.
Just a stupid white boy's dream at appeasement...

This is for stupid white boy comment. Why is it always white "boy"and black "man" This seems to be a racist comment suggesting that white men are less of a man than a black man.

Some people are more insecure in their manhood, some are not...

I would have to agree on this being much to early in Obama's presidency to compare. If I was forced to make a decision, Lincoln will probably go down as a much better President than Obama on his current path. He seems to me to be no different than most other politicians of our time. They say one thing and do another after they are elected and try to switch it up right before re-election. Either he has caved to the masses in Washington or he never even intended to change things. Only history will tell.

What about the circumstances under which both presidents find themselves? We all know that the ecomony determines much of the peoples' attitudes and reactions. Do you think Obama has come in a better time than Lincoln did? If they were to switch places in history, would Obama manage lincoln's time? Or would Lincoln manage the current America in its state? Am still getting my opinion together.

Lincoln was going to send all the slaves back home maybe lil o will complete linoln's plans.

Lincoln was a hero, a true legend. Obama is the opiate of the people, to help them forget that this country is falling apart.

Obama said he would stop the war but is sending more troops to Afghanistan.. He champions universal health care but the hospital where he wife worked made huge profits by charging uninsured Latinos three times the amount as insured whites.

No comaprison