Repubican President Abraham Lincoln now a Democrat

[Glockster30]

Did a search -

The liberals continue with their revisionist history.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/11/12/college-plaque-in-land-lincoln-labels-abe-democrat/

 

[glockstones]

He was shit no matter what side he was on.

 

[Iram]

He was shit no matter what side he was on.

Pretty much.

 

[Al-Jim19]

Abraham Lincoln didn't really care about equality that much...one of the most skewed historical topics if believe. Saving the union was his thing. Dare I say one of the first real statist presidents.

 

[mikem317]

He was shit no matter what side he was on.

This.

Suspended habeus corpus, declared martial law, ordered the destruction/occupation of seceded states, took the nation off the gold standard for the first time since the Continental, imprisoned critical journalists, and specifically exempted northern states in the emancipation proclamation.

Check out "The Real Lincoln" by Thomas DiLorenzo if you have a chance. Haven't read it, but want to. Heard it's a pretty good read.

 

[Al-Jim19]

This.

Suspended habeus corpus, declared martial law, ordered the destruction/occupation of seceded states, took the nation off the gold standard for the first time since the Continental, imprisoned critical journalists, and specifically exempted northern states in the emancipation proclamation.

Check out "The Real Lincoln" by Thomas DiLorenzo if you have a chance. Haven't read it, but want to. Heard it's a pretty good read.

I read that book for school, I don't know if I really buy what the guy is selling, but it was definitely good to see some contrast to the way Lincoln is normally portrayed.

 

[Marty McFly]

disgusting.

 

[mikem317]

He's celebrated as one of America's greatest presidents. The reality is that he was sort of a ruthless tyrant, hell bent on keeping the union together, even if that meant killing, maiming, raping and pillaging the south.

 

[Glockster30]

This.

Suspended habeus corpus, declared martial law, ordered the destruction/occupation of seceded states, took the nation off the gold standard for the first time since the Continental, imprisoned critical journalists, and specifically exempted northern states in the emancipation proclamation.

Check out "The Real Lincoln" by Thomas DiLorenzo if you have a chance. Haven't read it, but want to. Heard it's a pretty good read.

Based on the replies, I guess no one likes Republican Thomas Jefferson, either!

 

[Al-Jim19]

Based on the replies, I guess no one likes Republican Thomas Jefferson, either!

As a rule, I have a generally negative view of almost all presidents.

 

[glockstones]

Based on the replies, I guess no one likes Republican Thomas Jefferson, either!

There where over 100 countries between 1800=1899 who abolished slavery and we where one of the only ones who had our federal government declare war on it's own people to do it. Lincoln didn't care about equality as much as he cared about keep the union intact. This in essence equates to Lincoln pulling back the plunger on a pinball machine that has never stopped since he started. The fed was only emboldened by the fact that half a country stood up to them and they won. The civil war was far from that it was the rape of and murder of southern Americans who believed in a different set of ideals. Not to mention the proliferation of wealth that was taken out of the south by the north to fund this little power trip. I do not condone nor support slavery in any way shape or form but declaring war and handling things the way our fed did back then was the wrong way to handle it. I prefer my presidents to be complete badasses who look an assassin in the face and then beat the shit out of them. http://history1800s.about.com/od/crimesanddisasters/ss/failed-assassinations_2.htm . President Andrew Jackson, perhaps the most combative American president ever, not only survived an assassination attempt, he tried to assault the man who had tried to shoot him.

On January 30, 1835, Andrew Jackson visited the U.S. Capitol to attend the funeral of a member of Congress. While on his way out of the building a man named Richard Lawrence stepped out from behind a pillar and fired a flintlock pistol. The gun misfired, making a loud noise but not firing a projectile.

As shocked spectators looked on, Lawrence pulled out another pistol and again pulled the trigger. The second pistol also misfired, again making a loud, though harmless, noise.

Jackson, who had survived countless violent encounters, one of which left a pistol ball in his body that wasn't removed for decades, flew into a rage. As several people grabbed Lawrence and wrestled him to the ground, Jackson reportedly struck the failed assassin several times with his cane.

Edit: they definitely do not make democrats like that anymore.

 

[Glockster30]

All of you are missing my point, which is, liberals like to revise history to their liking and beliefs!

 

[Al-Jim19]

That is my absolute favorite Andrew Jackson story, although Jackson had his own power hungry ambitions...even the good ones aren't good.

 

[glockstones]

That is my absolute favorite Andrew Jackson story, although Jackson had his own power hungry ambitions...even the good ones aren't good.

Agreed while I liked what he did over all I don't agree with the Indian Acts he was involved with and obviously the slavery thing.

- - - Updated - - -

All of you are missing my point, which is, liberals like to revise history to their liking and beliefs!

If you would like I could dig up some stuff the republicans have tried to rewrite themselves also.

 

[Lank]

Couldnt agree more about lincoln being a murdering statist.

 

[Glockster30]

[QUOTE
If you would like I could dig up some stuff the republicans have tried to rewrite themselves also.[/QUOTE]

Why stop at republicans? Find everything that was re-written, so the rest of us can get some sleep.

 

[Silversnake]

All of you are missing my point, which is, liberals like to revise history to their liking and beliefs!

I take it, then, that you didn't read the entire article. The plaque has had the word "democrat" on it since 1905 according to the article and, according to those who are responsible for it and the building, the word was chosen because Lincoln was being recognize as a proponent of the democratic form of governance. That Fox News and Turning Point USA are coming along now and making a stink over that word as a perceived party affiliation strikes me as not much better than the anti-gun types trying to imply that "well regulated" in the second amendment refers to government rules and restrictions. I'll grant you, it's a little better because the university might not have as much supporting documentation about the plaque's intent as there is for the Constitution, but it still seems like a silly knee-jerk reaction and waste of energy when there's much more important stuff to pay attention to than party affiliation (as meaningless as that is) of one man.

If folks want to play the "the other team isn't as good as my team" game, there are many other things to get much more worked up about. Just throw a dart at the front page of tomorrow's paper and you'll hit something.

 

[Boris]

over the course of US history, Dems and Reps changed so much that each party had a fair share of a-holes, actually most of them were.

It's time to pull out Lincoln's quotes on n...blacks and how really felt about it. Honest Abe didn't tell a lie. But then racist Dems aren't exactly news.

 

[glockstones]

[QUOTE
If you would like I could dig up some stuff the republicans have tried to rewrite themselves also.

Why stop at republicans? Find everything that was re-written, so the rest of us can get some sleep.[/QUOTE]

No I will just continue to be amused by people who think that repubs eat libs and shit unicorns that fart solutions to our problems.

 

[Al-Jim19]

"If I could save the union by freeing all the slaves I would do that. If I could save the union by freeing no slaves I would do that. I if could save the union by freeing some slaves and leaving some in servitude I would do that"

or or something to that effect.

on a similar note, Jackson was also willing to fight his own countrymen in battle. Presidents are largely bastards.

 

[tele_mark]

The Republic's first RINO. I approve of the Progressives adopting him as their own and calling him as he really was. Of course, the label Democrat is kind of mis-leading, as back then the Democratic party wasn't what it is today. I'd be more happy if they re-labeled him as "Statist", but adjusting for the times, as one would adjust for inflation, I'll take it.

 

[Glockster30]

Why stop at republicans? Find everything that was re-written, so the rest of us can get some sleep.

No I will just continue to be amused by people who think that repubs eat libs and shit unicorns that fart solutions to our problems.[/QUOTE]


After that inarticulate, meaningless statement, this thread should be locked!

 

[glockstones]

No I will just continue to be amused by people who think that repubs eat libs and shit unicorns that fart solutions to our problems.

After that inarticulate, meaningless statement, this thread should be locked![/QUOTE]

You started a thread like a lot of other pointing out "look what team blue did" . I was just merely pointing out that team red does the same shit. They are both effectively volatile towards liberty. There are some republicans that I think "get it" but most from both sides are just rubbish. I will side with and back any candidate who follows the same ideals as me and does their job. I am still waiting on that.

 

[Glockster30]

After that inarticulate, meaningless statement, this thread should be locked!

You started a thread like a lot of other pointing out "look what team blue did" . I was just merely pointing out that team red does the same shit. They are both effectively volatile towards liberty. There are some republicans that I think "get it" but most from both sides are just rubbish. I will side with and back any candidate who follows the same ideals as me and does their job. I am still waiting on that.[/QUOTE]


Depending on what your "ideals" are, you will probably die waiting. There is no perfect candidate that will meet your ideals!

 

[Wrench75]

sic semper tyrannis.

/thread

 

[glockstones]

You started a thread like a lot of other pointing out "look what team blue did" . I was just merely pointing out that team red does the same shit. They are both effectively volatile towards liberty. There are some republicans that I think "get it" but most from both sides are just rubbish. I will side with and back any candidate who follows the same ideals as me and does their job. I am still waiting on that.

Depending on what your "ideals" are, you will probably die waiting. There is no perfect candidate that will meet your ideals![/QUOTE]

My "ideals" are just leave people alone and let them do whatever they want as long as it doesn't hurt someone else or take away another free will. I will not give up on my unalienable rights and freedoms and I will not compromise them away like some justify to themselves.

 

[seanc]

Tell you what.. They can have Lincoln.. Can we trade for Truman?

 

[sieveboy]

Honest Abe leads the pack of US presidents in the "killing his own people" column.

 

[calsdad]

There where over 100 countries between 1800=1899 who abolished slavery and we where one of the only ones who had our federal government declare war on it's own people to do it. Lincoln didn't care about equality as much as he cared about keep the union intact. This in essence equates to Lincoln pulling back the plunger on a pinball machine that has never stopped since he started. The fed was only emboldened by the fact that half a country stood up to them and they won. The civil war was far from that it was the rape of and murder of southern Americans who believed in a different set of ideals. Not to mention the proliferation of wealth that was taken out of the south by the north to fund this little power trip. I do not condone nor support slavery in any way shape or form but declaring war and handling things the way our fed did back then was the wrong way to handle it. I prefer my presidents to be complete badasses who look an assassin in the face and then beat the shit out of them. http://history1800s.about.com/od/crimesanddisasters/ss/failed-assassinations_2.htm . President Andrew Jackson, perhaps the most combative American president ever, not only survived an assassination attempt, he tried to assault the man who had tried to shoot him.

On January 30, 1835, Andrew Jackson visited the U.S. Capitol to attend the funeral of a member of Congress. While on his way out of the building a man named Richard Lawrence stepped out from behind a pillar and fired a flintlock pistol. The gun misfired, making a loud noise but not firing a projectile.

As shocked spectators looked on, Lawrence pulled out another pistol and again pulled the trigger. The second pistol also misfired, again making a loud, though harmless, noise.

Jackson, who had survived countless violent encounters, one of which left a pistol ball in his body that wasn't removed for decades, flew into a rage. As several people grabbed Lawrence and wrestled him to the ground, Jackson reportedly struck the failed assassin several times with his cane.

Edit: they definitely do not make democrats like that anymore.

Jackson also got rid of the first central bank.

If the Democrats had continued to put people like that in office - they really would have a stranglehold on power.

 

[Cap]

Based on the replies, I guess no one likes Republican Thomas Jefferson, either!

Jefferson was a democratic-republican. I'm not sure if that's the point you were trying to make.

If I had to pick one president to like, it would probably be him.