Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I would have to say that their are certain similarities between the two.
Lincoln was singularly incapable of working "across the isle" and keeping this country united. Under his watch, the country split, and we had the bloodiest war in this countries history. Brother fighting against brother, neighbor against neighbor...while wealthy contributors got immensely rich.
Obama is perhaps the second most divisive president in our history. He is splitting this country between producers and moochers, instilling class envy and promoting class warfare. At least he has not managed to incite significant violence...yet.
And both became President during a time of national crises and extreme polarization.
There is a difference, obama has created this extreme polarization, Lincoln didn't.....
Quote:
Lincoln emanicipated the slaves while Obama basically granted emancipation to gays serving in the military.
This is one of the most ludicrous comparisons I've ever read on C-D....
Quote:
They both promoted technology, the transcontinental railroad for Lincoln and investment in green and clean energy technologies for Obama. Again showing how they're both forward thinkers.
Uhhh, wouldn't it be better to compare successful technology investments by the two? Oh yeah that's right, obama doesn't have any successful technology investments....
Quote:
Lincoln made cheap western land available to purchase for settlement, while Obama made new cars more affordable under the cash for clunkers program.
I remember cash for clunkers, another obama disaster that didn't work.....
I think Obama tries to be like FDR. He said he wanted more "economic experiments like FDR" in one of his debates. FDR's "economic experiments" made the depression "The Great Depression" so apparently Obama desires to go down the same failed path.
And both became President during a time of national crises and extreme polarization.
There is a difference, obama has created this extreme polarization, Lincoln didn't.....
I disagree. Obama didn't create the extreme polarization.
It may have become worse after Obama was elected, especially due to Obamacare, but the polarization certainly didn't start with him.
A lot of it grew worse during Bush after it had started with Clinton.
Clinton because of his character and the country became divided over his impeachment.
And then after that, Bush ran as "A uniter and not a divider".
Also in response to Clinton's military involvement in Bosnia, Bush also said that he was not going to be a nation builder.
But then somehow we ended in up in 2 wars that led to rebuilding nations, while Halliburton made billions.
The 2000 Presidential election showed how divided the country was, especially with the contested Florida Presidential vote that ended up in the U.S. Surpeme Court. Bush ended up receiving 271 electoral votes to 266 for Gore.
Clinton had proposed national health care that failed to pass long before Obamacare.
During Bush, House Majority Leader Tom Delay was nicknamed "The Iron Fist" for being able to deliver GOP votes and then had to step down after being indicted for illegal activity in Texas.
So the 2 political parties had already stopped cooperating and the country was already well polarized long before Obama was elected.
I disagree. Obama didn't create the extreme polarization.
It may have become worse after Obama was elected, especially due to Obamacare, but the polarization certainly didn't start with him.
A lot of it grew worse during Bush after it had started with Clinton.
Clinton because of his character and the country became divided over his impeachment.
And then after that, Bush ran as "A uniter and not a divider".
Also in response to Clinton's military involvement in Bosnia, Bush also said that he was not going to be a nation builder.
But then somehow we ended in up in 2 wars that led to rebuilding nations, while Halliburton made billions.
The 2000 Presidential election showed how divided the country was, especially with the contested Florida Presidential vote that ended up in the U.S. Surpeme Court. Bush ended up receiving 271 electoral votes to 266 for Gore.
Clinton had proposed national health care that failed to pass long before Obamacare.
During Bush, House Majority Leader Tom Delay was nicknamed "The Iron Fist" for being able to deliver GOP votes and then had to step down after being indicted for illegal activity in Texas.
So the 2 political parties had already stopped cooperating and the country was already well polarized long before Obama was elected.
Obama sure knows how to take advantage of a situation, doesn't he. Gotta hand it to him. Never let an opportunity to exploit go to waste. Tell 'em what they want to hear ("no red states, no blue states, but the United States"then get busy dividing and conquering.
Yes. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, Obama gave us the NDAA.
Except Lincoln suspended it because we had an internal war. Obama signed NDAA based on an external (and somewhat ficticious) threat of terror. Similar in application, polar opposites in terms of reason.
Obama feels the need to protect us, from us. The political elites have become our self-appointed baby sitters.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
