If he were president today
The cable news commentators would be on his case about
His awful haircut
His gaunt face
His crooked tie
His trembling hands
His mole
His depression
His wide lapels
His lanky frame
His crazy wife
His Marfan Syndrome
His overuse of humor
And his plans to spend time relaxing at the theatre instead of doing the job he was elected to do
(Abraham Lincoln)
Picture by: dunno source. Caption by: Brown via Advanced Lol Builder
-
-
Copy & paste this:
And if Obama was President back then… Actually, let’s not go there.
lets go there !
Well… Then the birthers would be right and seem less insane, which would be good for them, at least.
*still trying to find positives for someone, somewhere*
Haha, I saw what you did there…;)
Actually Lincoln was lambasted at every turn, he was a VERY unpopular president in his era. (Hence the assassination plot…) It would be more accurate to compare Bush’s media roasting to Lincolns’, rather than Obama’s.
I think Hoover is a better analogy for this sort of comparison. He was a good president and did a lot for the country, but was blamed for things that weren’t his fault and lambasted anyways.
P.S. Teddy Roosevelt FTW!
Ah, T.R…. a veritable deity amongst presidents….
William Harrison FTW!
(how do you phrase,
that guy was dead in 30 days!)
Pssssst!! It’s “how do you PRAISE”.
*is an Animaniacs junkie*
Correction, Fox News would do all those things.
No. A LOT of media outlets would do those things. I like to watch a variety of news channels (Fox, CNN, local news). Sad to say, all media companies have stooped to a lower level.
Oh, give him a break…. in some circles, saying “Fox News bad” passes for cleverness, insight *and* humor.
I agree with him on this one.
So many Libtards (not all Rando) just look at a Conservative say “FOX News sucks!” and go back to their New Yorker.
I meant not everyone is a “Libtard”
Just the stupid one’s who are just as hateful as conservatrolls.
Because fox news DOES suck? But really, most news stations suck. Only news i watch for nonbiased stories and ACTUAL news, not “omg the president has a dog lawl and now hes buying a nintendo wii :O” is BBC news.
Speaking of libtards.
Aw, give him a break. They DID run the Ensign mistake three times on the O’Reilly Factor and screwed up Mark Sanford’s affiliation also- those two being in the middle of a crisis when the mistake was made, I just can’t get past in terms of “Maybe it was an accident?”
We already discussed some of the “bloopers” the other networks have made.
on the other hand, the “big three”, NYT, WPost and BBC all did a soviet-style ignore of Van Jones… until *after* his resignation. Fetishizing one news source is foolish.
“Because fox news DOES suck? … ”
Um, that doesn’t explain the obsession with decrying Fox News… and certainly makes the meme of accusing others of watching it exclusively even less defensible.
I does suck, though.
It does suck, though.
just because you find something to be cliche, doesn’t mean it’s not true. fox news is crap.
What, sore that O’Rielly is beating the pants off of Olbermann and Madow combined in the ratings?
Yes, I am. Look at how much Olbermann and Madow let their guests speak and voice there opinions. Now look at O’Reilly.
Point made.
But Fox News DOES suck. heh heh
nahh fox new blows!
With you on that one. If you get a good cross-section on a story, you have a fighting chance at figuring out what’s really happened.
Likewise; I mean when I’m reading Middle East stories I read the BBC News, Al Jazeera, and the Jerusalem Post websites.
Correction Fail.
much as i don’t like fox, semper & rach are right – all the news companies can be pretty snide these days
No they wouldn’t; Lincoln was a Republican,
It was a very different Republican party back then.
Tongue in cheek.
Also, the caption says “today”
Oh, okay then.
That’s the funny thing. They called Caronlina Senator Mark Sanford a Democrat, due to his sex scandal. It’s all about glorifying a certain party.
Actually, they said that that was a mistake. They also did it with Ensign mid-scandal, too- the mislabeling of him as a (D), I mean.
Considering that I had to search for Blago’s party affiliation when that story broke in the MSN, and had to most recently search like the dickens to find the affiliation of the Congressperson who ran over that biker in the street after running a red light, I’d say that the media on both sides do their share of screwing it up.
His the governor not a senator, kthanx.
I should know, I’m from South Carolina.
Damn typos.
You mean the incredibly annoying “kthanx” you posted at the end of the sentence? Doesn’t seem very logical not to use proper English…
Your comment is made of organic, preservatives-free, 100% natural and fat-free WIN.
But I like my win to have lots of trans fat in it!
TOO BAD FOR YOU, I’M THE HEALTH NAZI!
Not. I love my snacks. All. Day. Long.
**sneaks up behind igor, throws a rock, when he looks away palms a big ‘ol fist full of lard into Rando’s win**
**realises how bad that sounds, goes back to the cooler**
In this age of 24 hour, all the ‘news’ all the time, there is no way in heaven, hell or anywhere in between that Lincoln could get elected, he’d never have gotten through the vetting process, let alone the telegenic process.
Absolutely. There’s no way this man could get in office today. He could not be manipulated.
well, given the substance-less amateur in the White House now, it’s hard to disagree. Image rules the day.
I’m trying to decide which is worse. Conservatrolls like this dipshit here, or liberal trolls who make my peeps look bad. One can’t stop spouting hateful crap towards my side, and one just makes my side look bad. I guess I’ll just say they all suck.
Succus maximus? Is that you?
Vacuis Maximus, because I’m a geek that knows an insignificant part of latin. And technically vacuis is Italian, but it’s not far off.
Vacuis Maximus actually, I’m a geek that knows an insignificant bit of latin. And technically vacuis is Italian, but it’s not far off. Here’s a fun one for you to translate (This is why I failed latin class, too much time translating funny phrases, not enough actually studying) Carpe vitam nuccibus et trahe.
A couple different Latin translators gave me nothing on this one, Kurt. I think we found a more pressing reason that you failed Latin. :-X
Seize life by the [I'm guessing that this is a vulgarity]s and drag it?
Come again?
Ah. Well that was pretty fvcking stupid. I’m glad I wasted my time asking about that one. LOL
No, and stop talking to your subconscious personalities in public.
Actually, they WERE pretty rough on him back then. I beleive one of his Cabinet members (!!) referred to him as “the gorilla” for example. There was a rumor floated about by southerners that he had (gasp!) “negroid” blood. His dotty wife was endlessly lambasted for her spending, her jealousy, and her southern sympathies.
Abusing politicians is a long, proud American tradition. And, I, for one, like it. It keep them in their place.
British papers referred to him as “the Ape.” They didn’t feel that he had any place in the British class system. This, while they were running the blockade to get cheap cotton. That was the last time that the Brits interfered in internal American affairs.
As for The Great Man, ya gotta love these “inexperienced senator(s) from Illinois.” With no evidence whatsoever, I have to believe that Lincoln would have loved Obama and his priorities. It’s been a long time since a president actually did work for a government of, by and FOR the people.
That’s because the founding fathers (with good reason) distrusted the “demos” utterly. They tried to set up a system that avoided the classical pitfalls of democracy.
But I’m afraid that’s way too deep for most. What it comes to is this: NEVER trust populists.
i thought that was, “never trust politicians”
i read a book once (i know, right? who’d a thunk) called “The Last Continent” and at one point the protagonist is in jail, he meets the mayor of the city and is informed that their country got fed up with the crooked politicians that as soon as someone gets elected to office they’re put in jail. something like that. anyway, what were were saying?
Or the Pierson’s (sp) Puppeteers in Larry Niven’s “tales of Known Space” who appoint people who really don’t want the job to political office, because they’ll only do something if they really have to!
Niven FTW! He has always been my favorite Sci-Fi writer!
Oh yeah, Lucifer’s Hammer is one of my all time favorite books. I need to go read that again.
Or real life, when the Romans made Cincinnatus dictator during a war, and he voluntarily resigned as soon as he won, because he didn’t want the power. (Twice). /off topic
They’re clever like that in XXXX!
“Lost Continent” by Terry Pratchett, perhaps?
“After we elect the Prime Minister, we hauls ‘im down to prison and-”
“Why do you do that?!?” asked Rincewind.
“Well, it saves time, don’t it?”
(dialogue from memory)
ah ha! yes! thanks, it’s been a while since i read it.
No – it is “The Last Continent”, really.
It’s Neilette who’s saying it.
Neilette starts with talking about a chief who has to go to prison to ask the prime minister about something.
(R:)”Why did he have to go to prison?”
(N:)”We put all our politicians in prison as soon as they’re elected. Don’t you?”
(R:) “Why?”
(N:) “It saves time.”
Not from memory. ;p
No, it’s called “Lunar Continent”, it’s about settlers on the moon, and it’s by a guy named Something That a Scientist Would be Named, look it up, people.
Sheesh. Can’t even remember your own books. And you don’t even lie to make them up like me.
Thank you for the correction.
Pratchett = SERIOUS BUSINESS.
You = PRETTY SERIOUS GAL
I mean, really, familiar with fiction not written in your native language? Man, I just barely speak restaurant spanish.
Well, as soon as you happen to read a language decently (like I do English), there is much to be said for avoiding translated books like the plague. Not that translators are bad at their job (most of the time), but written text just loses so much. Especially someone like Pratchett who uses the language in such a frivolous way.
Same thing with films; with live action, even if there’s a dub version available I’ll actively choose a sub-title film, because it’s amazing how much vocal nuance and original language jokes etc get lost buy the translators and dub artists.
Never trust the Federalists!
the federalis are here??
**hides bag of crack and dons a cactus costume**
If Lincoln was alive today, he would have been a democrat and if Rush “Lumbrain” was around he would in 1863, he would have been a Southern Democrat.
How scary is that?
based on … what?
Other than leftie fantasies that all righties are “racists”, what what examples can you give?
The civil war was basically a war over who would run each state – the state capital or Washington D.C.
The Republicans (and Union, ie. The North) wanted a centralised government, and the Democrates (and the Confederacy, ie. The South) wanted the individual states regulating themselves.
Of course, I simplified it a heck of a lot. You can find more information at your local library.
So which side do you think the “I just believe in smaller government” types today would be on back then?
Not really; the issue wasn’t whether the federal government could regulate the states, it was whether states could leave the Union.
Not the same thing.
(Link)
The Republican Southern Strategy
… your point being…?
This is where the impression that all Republicans are racists comes from. The Republican party made a decision fifty some years ago to court a constituency (the southern Democrats) that seemed ready to switch allegiance. Now, they have what they were looking for: a large constituencey in the south, with a visibly racist component. It’s unfair to tar all Republicans with the same brush, but it was a pretty predictable result of pursuing the Southern Strategy.
Clear now Dhoti- umm, dhydar?
If Lincolen were alive today, he’d be appalled.
Yours is a futile exercise in silliness.
if lincoln was alive today…. he’d be 200 years old
Exactly. He was lambasted regularly and with malice. He was only canonized later because the victors write the history books.
Yep. One basic rule : “The Golden Age… wasn’t.”
I agree with dhydar on something?
*checks* OK, sun is still setting to the west. I still have a pulse.
*is confused*
didnt notice it keeping bush up a tree!
And don’t forget that he was an atheist/agnostic in his youth, and a deist later on in life.
It’s funny that it was easier back then to be an atheist than it is now.
So true.
Why is that? It doesn’t seem to me that it is that hard to be an athiest today. I am not an athiest so that may be why I think that. I am curious about why you think it is hard to be an athiest in todays time.
Riot shields ready! Now!!!
Try living in the Bible Belt as an atheist. You tend to keep your head down and your mouth shut.
Sort of like being a believer in Europe.
Yes I can see where living in the Bible Belt and being an atheist could be difficult. I lived in Memphis for a while. There were more churches than fast food restaurants. I now live in Las Vegas. It would be much easier to be an atheist here I would think.
*waves at Semper*
Lucky! You got awaaaay! In my opinion, living in Memphis you have two choices: 1) There is no God; 2) You are being punished by God by living here.
Well, except for the barbecue.
St. Louis’ motto: “At least it’s not Memphis.”
Well, not really.
Would. Not. Be. Surprised.
In MA, we’re “At least it’s not New Hampshire!”
In Colorado, it’s “At least it’s not…um…dammit…Hey, we got mountains!!”
I hear in Nevada it’s “Hey, we’ve got hookers! You won’t get arrested, and they’re only fifteen times more likely to be males than in the other states!”
Oh, sweet Nevada. It seems like only yesterday that I was dancing with drunk transvestite hookers to a bad Beatles tribute on Freemont Street…
Good times…
My mother is a liberal democrat in what must be the only heavily republican county in NJ. She finds that she can’t talk politics with anyone there. Must be rather like an atheist in the deep south…
North Carolina “Tobacco is a vegetable”
You haven’t been to NC lately.
I… live there actually.
But you haven’t BEEN there lately. See the difference?
I don’t remember where I was going, church trip maybe, but we had to drive through Memphis for some reason and the basic philosophy was “don’t even think about stopping.” Pretty rough, especially from one of the fastest dying cities in the midwest.
Mostly because you judge european society from US value and standard, that are not theirs – like the concept that religion is private, being a religious person is totaly acceptable, as long as you don’t try to rub your faith on other nose, and same go with atheist who try to push their believe on you ( they are just seen as an other religion, the “there is no god or greater purpose for human to be on earth” ‘s religion)
May need to clear that a little bit: “like the concept that religion is private, being a religious person is totaly acceptable, as long as you don’t try to rub your faith on other nose, and same go with atheist who try to push their believe on you ( they are just seen as an other religion, the “there is no god or greater purpose for human to be on earth” ’s religion)”<<–This part is about european perception that are not American and, therefore, miss understood by american when you judge thing from american standard.
Your grammar.
It pains me.
I’m guessing Neko doesn’t have English as a first language. I think we get the general gist of it though…I think.
Add a third “I think” for good measure, because he sounds a bit like my friend from Quebec, and if it’s a completely different language that’s his first, we may have read this WHOLE post wrong.
How did you read it?
”
May need to clear that a little bit: “like the concept that religion is private, being a religious person is totaly acceptable, as long as you don’t try to rub your faith on other nose, and same go with atheist who try to push their believe on you ( they are just seen as an other religion, the “there is no god or greater purpose for human to be on earth” ’s religion)”” = Religion in Europe is generally a private thing, and being religious is fine, as long as you don’t rub others’ noses in your faith, and the same thing applies to atheism: it’s just another religion, just like all the others, and you’re still an ass if you try to rub others’ faces in it.
“<<–This part is about european perception that are not American and, therefore, miss understood by american when you judge thing from american standard."
I think this part means…. This is the European view that Americans don't share, and so we misunderstand/ Miss. Understand because we view Europe with the standards that we have over here, not the ones they use in Europe.
Must be something related to the Metric system, I guess.
Well I don’t speak metric, so if you don’t like America FVCK YOU!!!!
*I couldn’t resist*
THIS WAS A JOKE
We interpret it the same way, yay!
Either it’s that metric system, or s/he’s just speaking Europese.
I totally failed Europese in high school. We Americans can’t be bothered with foreign languages. We just think everyone else needs to speak American. No, not English. Those English losers have had their language roundhouse kicked by some good ol’ Chuck Norris AMERICAN language. America rules! The other 5.7 billion people suck!!
Close to that (yes english is not my first language, and it’s not an “official language” in my country, as it is in Quebec that you mention -well ok, Quebec is not a country , just a part of Canada, but you get my point- )
I have been in the US long enought (I have seen Katrina here) to know that wearing a T-shirt saying Jesus is the answers, or god is my sheepper (orth?) without shocking anyone (I have been living in Florida/North-carolina and Alabama as base for this affirmation, other states may be different).
Wear that is Europe and you will get bad look or/and bad comment.
From an american point of view (again, according of my experience of where I live/lived) this attitude will be interpreted as describe earlier (Sisyphusredux: “Try living in the Bible Belt as an atheist. You tend to keep your head down and your mouth shut.
Sort of like being a believer in Europe.”) where, from and for a european, this is not an anti-religion attitude, but a reaction as inviding their privacy by forcing on them your religious believe, that are, once again something considered private in Europe.
“Wear that is Europe and you will get bad look or/and bad comment.”
You will? Are you sure? In Europe?
“inviding their privacy by forcing on them your religious believe, that are, once again something considered private in Europe”
Europe > the UK
Damnit, pressed enter too soon AGAIN.
I was going to say that yes, there are countries here where you don’t talk about your religion – it’s just not … an interesting (or too sensitive) conversation topic. There are very secularised countries here, there are very homogenously religious countries and also heterogenously religious countries.
I’ve nowhere yet visited a country where wearing a t-shirt like you describe would cause “bad looks or comments”. I’ve visited several where any hints of muslim belief would, but that’s not in any way a general unwritten law about antireligiousness.
Europe / is greater than / the UK ?
A shocker, innit?
I recognised the “inviding their privacy by forcing on them your religious believe, that are, once again something considered private in Europe” thing as something I have often heard said about the UK. On second thought, I think it’s most often said about England.
And, way too often lately, it has seem as if people are talking about various British phenomena and referring to them as Europe. It’s getting a wee bit annoying, so I am getting a wee bit annoying back.
“I have been in the US long enought (I have seen Katrina here) to know that wearing a T-shirt saying Jesus is the answers, or god is my sheepper (orth?) without shocking anyone (I have been living in Florida/North-carolina and Alabama as base for this affirmation, other states may be different).”
If you don’t understand that people who shove their religion on others get the same treatment here, YOU’RE the one with the misconceptions, Neko.
At least they recognize the word “reply.”
Oddly enough, my husband is European. My stepdaughter is going to university here. Both are struck by how open everyone is about their religion. In Europe, my stepdaughter, who is an observant Roman Catholic, had to keep her mouth shut and her head down about her beliefs. Here, her father, who is a militant atheist, has to do the same. In Europe, it is acceptable to be intolerant of religious belief. Here in the American South, it’s acceptable to be intolerant of lack of religious belief. I.e., it doesn’t matter WHAT you believe, just so you believe in SOMETHING.
The contrast is curious. I think it has a lot to do the many religious choices Americans have, and the relative lack of choices Euros have in what they are allowed to believe in.
In Europe, it would depend a lot on where (region, not just nation) you were.
“I think it has a lot to do the many religious choices Americans have, and the relative lack of choices Euros have in what they are allowed to believe in.”
What?
Heh. Maybe that person was trying to refer to countries with an official religion. Kind of like the state-supported Lutheran church in Danmark? Given that my cousins in that country mostly range from agnostic to atheist, I suspect that they would find that statement amusing…and would love to have that fraction of their taxes back?
I find it harder to be an Agnostic.
Most of my religious friends try to convince me of how inherently right they are, and it’s especially frustrating when they push you to JOIN their religion. It’s incredibly annoying that people don’t understand why I choose not to believe..
Although, I’d say it’s harder to be an Atheist in the Bible Belt.
I would think it’s more difficult to be an atheist than an agnostic. The agnostic at least acknowledges the possibility of the existence of something higher than human. The atheist rejects the existence of anything beyond what our senses and scientific knowledge currently perceive. That requires just as much faith as it takes to believe in the God of one’s brain-programming.
“The atheist rejects the existence of anything beyond what our senses and scientific knowledge currently perceive. ”
Not quite. There are quite different approaches to “what our senses perceive”, and rather different views on stuff that is not covered (YET) by scientific knowledge. Many atheists tend to not believe explanations for seemingly inexplicable phenomena are supernatural/religious though.
i like how you say it dan – i’m… not sure what i am, but i don’t follow the belief that there is an omnipotent anything anywhere. i think i fall in the athiest category but in alot of issues i think i fall into a more spiritual idealogy.
what caught my eye was the string theory, how it fit so well with older concepts in the hindu religion and even the force in star wars (which i think was based on that hindu thing). anyway.
i think that counts as athiest? i dunno. anyway, just felt like sharing
“I’m not religious, but I’m spiritual”
That is one of the warning signs for when you meet a girl, Wall, to which you are going to respond from this point forth:
“I’m not lying, but you’re really interesting.”
Being a jedi is really more of a Buddhist type approach to life, justice, compassion, defense, instead of aggression, and overall balance with the world and all things in it.
And the ability to carve people up like a Christmas turkey
Yeah. That comes in pretty handy too.
jedi is a recognised faith in the uk.
there was a pressure group a few uears back
go here and see…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2757067.stm
thats how serious we take all this crap!
Well that or else a protest against the the increasing number of increasingly intrusive questions in the census.
Hey! I thought you were a Brit . . . how did you know it’s increasingly intrusive? But yeah, that thing is . . . I just answered it the other day. They want to know how much your utilities cost, how many vehicles you have, how long your commute is, how much you make . . . should I have asked them if they wanted copies of the photos from my last colonoscopy?
“I thought you were a Brit . . . how did you know it’s increasingly intrusive?”
Wouldn’t that be exactly how someone would know that?
I am confused now. :p
Oh, hell! I’m the one that’s confused, Danbala! I didn’t read the link, because I thought I had read it before, about Jedi being a recognized religion.
I was talking about the U.S. census……duh.
‘Scuse me while I go get another cup of coffee. Almost 10:30 here and I’m still not awake. :-/
17:30 here and I am in the same sorry state. ;p I’ll bugger off to do physiotherapy instead. Might help.
You’re in Sweden, right?
I used to know most of the time differences, because I was a long-distance telephone operator in my youth. (Gosh, that was a boring, yet sometimes very enjoyable, job. The best part was talking to operators from so many other countries.)
Yep, Sweden, so it’s CET.
Ttfn!
Yes I’m a Brit; looks like the increasing intrusiveness issue is more widespread than I expected from the rest of this exchange. Note the multiple references to “UK” in Naughtyhorse’s post.
Sounds more like Taoism to me. Buddhism requires a level of detachment from the material world that I don’t think the Jedi displayed.
Meh. I’m not sure that the Jedi Knights displayed an attachment to the material world, so much as they needed the materials they were in possession of to carry out their duty/practices.
As in- the Jedi aren’t displayed with very many unnecessary “things”, so much as the library they needed to study, the lightsabers they used to do good, and the robes they wore- plus, the Jedi Council didn’t seem like it was for a senator- you were probably treated specially, but because you were a master at what you and everyone else did, not because you held a seat.
/Nerd harder, Igor!
No, I did NOT mean material THINGS. I meant material world as in non-spiritual.
They were involved in politics and war. That is one thing I was referring to as a level of attachment, not detachment.
True, but it seems like their role in warfare and political alliance seems like more of a humanitarian, prevent the harm of others scenario, rather than a “OMG THE WORLD IS COLLAPSING!” kind of attachment.
You’re right. I didn’t word that well. What I should have said was that anything beyond our current limitations of knowledge and perception is not given any kind of spiritual value, whereas an agnostic might consider that EVERYTHING has spiritual value, and that there may be a hierarchy of Intelligence in the Universe.
That was much more clear.
True, but I’m an agnostic simply because *I can’t know*. I wish I could, kind of, but I can’t prove or disprove any religion’s belief (regarding their deities, not their prophets), and therefore don’t ignore or give special attention to them.
I don’t think everything has spiritual value, by ze ways.
I know. That’s why I used the word “might”, since all agnostics are different. But I’ve changed my mind. I think you’re right about it being more difficult to be an agnostic (I’m one too). The atheist makes a decision on faith not to even ponder the possibility of a Conscious Creative Force, which I see as the lazy way out. I’m not judging. I think it’s perfectly fine to go that route, if someone wants to choose it. Just don’t try to shove it down the throats of others, like some Christians try to force their religion on others.
The agnostic (some of us, anyway), on the other hand, spends a lifetime trying to puzzle things out. That requires a lot of mental energy and thoughtful pursuit.
All agnostics are different, but an atheist has just chosen the lazy way out?
It’s not lazy, not one bit, and there is still a lifetime of puzzling, there just is no god involved in the puzzling process. The reason for the exclusion of gods (and/or other supernatural, occult things) is probably rather individual.
That was a loaded word, wasn’t it? I apologize. It seems so much easier to decide that there’s no need to look for evidence of consciousness other than human. It’s probably because I’ve spent so many years in the pursuit. As for the supernatural and the occult, I think all of metaphysics is just physics not yet understood, but with an animating, conscious force.
Apology accepted. Belief system discussions are like a field full of tender toes to step on. Hard to avoid. Practice helps.
Anyway. I think there are “lazy” atheists, agnostics and believers. However, I can assure you that as little as all believers just go “Oh well, I’ll just believe in a god – seems to make life easy and besides my family believes”, all agnostics go “Aaah, can’t be arsed to make up my mind, I’ll just … not make up my mind” do all atheists go “Believe? Seems like a hassle, I’ll skip it”.
The fact that I absolutely do not believe there is any “Conscious Creative Force” is definitely not just because I’ve made a decision not to bother with it. ;p
And I don’t really see “decide that there’s no need to look for evidence of consciousness other than human” as relevant? Why would anyone go around looking for evidence for something that’s so uncertain? Why not instead wait for evidence that suggests a consciousness other than human (or any other known animal, I think plenty of those are rather conscious) actually appears, and then start looking for the consciousness?
So. Yeah. I haven’t ever thought of the idea of not looking for evidence for a theory an atheist thing. It’d be one thing if you had a good theory and wanted to prove it.
To make my muddled point somewhat clearer, possibly – there’s an inumerable amout of things I don’t go around looking for evidence for existence/possibility of.
Like Zombie Lennon. There is no Zombie Lennon. *has a sad*
“That requires just as much faith as it takes to believe in the God of one’s brain-programming.”
It requires just as much Faith out of you to not believe in Odin too, amiright? Or Shiva? How about Fairies? Unicorns? Are they all on the table until they’re proven to not exist? Cause Unicorns are tricky.
Everyone was being civil, and then you came along. Quit making the other free-thinkers look bad.
Well. Since it’s a discussion about religion/agnosticism/atheism – s/he had to come along. It’s a law of nature. In fact, s/he saved us – had s/he taken much longer, the world would have ended in Various Exciting Ways.
Well thank God (at least I will
) for that.
Clever jab, even if it was directed at me. *applause*
Oh, not intended at all! I ain’t that clever. :p
Much easier to give examples of where their logic leads then trying to explain the fallacy of their logic. Especially on the net, Friend. Are you not tired of being told what you “believe”?
Very tired. I guess it would be better if I just listened to you.
I don’t get the indignation. I wasn’t putting religion down, wasn’t putting agnosticism or any other belief system down. Just the faulty logic that non-belief = belief-in-not-existing, is bad logic as a topic so sensitive that it can’t be approached sarcastically?
@ Caerula. You must have missed some of the previous ‘smackdown’ fights on religion. It tends to make the survivors a bit sensitive…
In a debate where people were seriously discussing their views and beliefs, sarcasm comes across as mocking when an outsider STARTS with it.
Mmm, I’d argue that Satire is a valid way of making one’s point, especially on such a capricious medium as the internet. Had I known it would simply be taken as an incendiary against Religion, I probably would’ve tweaked my OP.
Satire, sarcasm, irony + Internet = IMPENDING DOOM
The strength of the Internet as a discussion platform is also its weakness.
You could argue that, I would too, being as sarcasm, satire, farce, cynicism are my main weapons of choice… but I’m also a regular with established views and principles, so when people see me do it, they (usually) know I’m joking around. When you’re new here, the line between being cheeky, and being insulting are blurred a good bit.
It shouldn’t have to be, but as soon as it’s even touching the border of An Attack On Another Person’s Belief System, it’s reeeeeally fecking sensitive – and in a discussion thread about various degrees or forms of belief, just about anything can be interpreted as being near that border.
Well, imagine if a candidate for US President said he/she was an atheist. Do you think they’d stand a chance? We’ve got candidates who don’t believe in evolution up there. We’re kind of at the opposite extreme.
A socialist will be elected before an atheist.
Oh, wait! One already was *frothfrothfrothfrothfrothforthoopsfroththat’sbetterfrothfroth*
frlolth
Well, all socialists ARE atheists, don’t you know?
lol, this whole conversation reminds me of something a friend said to me the other day. “I believe in God, and I don’t have a religion!!” I’ve never laughed so hard in somebody’s face. knowing the definition of religion FAIL. (sorry, totally unrelated to your comment, just funny
)
What’s really funny is that you think believing in god is the same as having a religion. And what’s even funnier is that you totally made an ass out of yourself to a friend.
I would have been rather curious as to how the friend thought of the god, though. That’d have been interesting.
Unfortunately, the person in question (I may have been generous by saying friend, if it upsets you that much) then went on to say that they defined themselves as atheist, which is the opposite of believing in any god, since that is a THEIST characteristic. Sorry for not explaining implied bits of information.
Well with that context added, it makes perfect sense, laugh away!
Thanks, Max!
*cackles madly to himself*
That felt good…
You see, I couldn’t really care less if somebody is religious or not. Religion is a fine instrument of moral guidance. This person, however, was someone who just wanted to look cool and edgy by saying she atheist, but didn’t have enough sense to see that she was contradicting herself. THAT’S what I found funny
Yes, the character of your story changes with that added information. I’d still have asked how the person would have defined god if they didn’t have a religion. Much curiousness.
You and me both. I decided not to press the subject too much. Ex-satanist potheads tend to not make much sense on these matters.
Nonsense you just need more pot! Or…. are you ex satanist AND ex pothead?
Well, I’m neither, but the woman I was talking to made a point of informing us that she was both, which made the entire conversation quite a bit funnier as it progressed.
Oh.. well.. *retracts his monster spliff and coughs*
Nevermind then…
Oh man, who HASN’T had that awkward conversation with an ex-satanist pothead who is confused about the definition of atheism.
More times then I’d like to remember.
ME! I have had it with a 60 year old extremely conservative guy that I was caddying for who didn’t seem to understand the meaning of agnosticism.
Finally, I said “Sir, that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.”
My dad and I cracked up.
“Agnosticism, sonny? Well, I hope you’ve got your glasses on, don’t want to be losing any balls because you can’t see straight.”
FINALLY
That’s what a week on the meth will do to you, right kids?
Uh. Oh. Get the riot gear!!!!!
People need to quit making lol’s with old pictures. It brings out no funny, but even more stupid people.
True dat.
his name says it all
Being on his case about his Marfan Syndrome… gee that seems a tad harsh for most people. It’s not like it’s something he could help having.
Check the Wikipedia article on it; also explains his face, trembling hands and lankiness.
And since those lapels were fashionable back then…
I know what it is. It’s a genetic disorder, which is why it would be kind of low for anyone to pick at him about it.
nevertheless, he looks like a CRACKHEAD!!
Woah. Easy there!! I was noting just how many of the LOL’s “anti” points are answered by the Marfan Syndrome (esp since I had to look it up myself). OK?
Weird that he lived to be so old if he had Marfan’s Syndrome. My great-grandpa died age 40 of Marfan’s related heart attack, and my little brother, despite massive advances in medical technology, died before he reached 25.
oof, sorry to hear that pm.
Thanks. We miss him lots.
I had a brother who died young, too. It’s awful, I know.
I’ve read that due to the serious blurring of Lincoln’s leg in a late seated photo, they figured that he was due a rupture to an abdominal aortic aneurysm at some time in the next year or so after he was assassinated. But I gather Marfan’s can be pretty variable in how it effects. 25 is way young, though. And I’m really sorry for your losses.
Sorry paws there was no aggression intended in that comment. Perhaps I should have added a
after it?
No problem; I was surprised because all I was doing was adding info for people who wouldn’t look it up.
Fox would be complaining about his reluctance to fire McClellan and Democracy Now would be pointing out his poor human rights record for not ending slavery sooner
And they would HATE the fact that he added political rivals to his cabinet and made opponents into believers. Darned flip-floppers. Why couldn’t he have just hated anyone who disagreed with him the way most Americans do?
And they’d start calling him Abrasama bin Lincoln and they’d take up with some psychotic nonsense about a fabricated birth certificate.
Let’s not forget his sharing his bed with various male companions. Somehow I don’t think that would go over too well in cable news.
Everyone shared beds back then. When you spent the night at inns, for example, most were forced to share their beds with complete strangers (of the same sex). Beds were terribly expensive, so sharing your bed with your roommate was quite common. And, as it was a much more innocent time, no sexual connotations were attached to the practice.
Homosexuality was absolutely verboten in that time. If there had been the slightest hint about Lincoln as regards this, his many enemies would have brought it up.
We make a huge mistake when we try to ascribe present day idiosyncracies to another era.
I don’t think anonymous was hinting at homosexuality. But I could be thinking too highly… But s/he is correct–the media would have tried to make something of it!
But I’m sure homosexuality was around then–just not in political candidates.
And don’t believe everything you see on History Channel. Far more “entertainment” than History these days. I believe it is now the “Ice Road Truckers” channel and on alternate days the “Nostradamus/Disasters-of-various-types” channel. Discovery Channel is now the “Dangerous Crab/Fishing Boats” channel. The Learning Channel (ha) is now the ‘What Not To Wear/Little People” channel. And TV Land has become the fk’n “Rosanne” channel.
Ize disgustipated!
‘And don’t believe everything you see on History Channel. Far more “entertainment” than History these days. I believe it is now the “Ice Road Truckers” channel and on alternate days the “Nostradamus/Disasters-of-various-types” channel.’
thanks so much for that i can’t stand any of those shows
although i have to say i REALLY like deadliest catch
You can’t deny Shark Week though… that’s some awesome stuff there.
Wait, isn’t the History Channel the one that runs “Lock and Load with R. Lee Earmey”? That’s always fun!
Don’t forget to mention his reckless deficit spending, abridgment of the Constitution, use of fiat money, imposition of the draft, corruption in his cabinet, and instigating a war for a protective tariff.
Oh, and don’t forget his desire to send all slaves back to Africa.
Popular misconception. Lincoln never drove a Fiat. He drove a Porsche.
Sick bastard couldn’t even drive an American car. *sigh*
I don’t think he’d fit in a Fiat.
Maybe the cabriolet version?
unless it was a convertible
OK, OK, OK, OK, dunno about that—UMMMM, what? “Instigating” a war? How’s that, now? I understand the “protective tariff” bit, and I won’t argue it, but “instigating”?
Looks like a couple of people read one book on Lincoln without bothering to really investigate what he stood for and how he used the application of policy he was against to sway America and Congress into making the right decisions.
If you call outlawing slavery as goading the Confederacy into war. That’s exactly what he did. The Confederacy fired the first shots and the war dragged on only because the North didn’t believe in outlawing slavery.
Yes he instituted a draft, because no white man in the North would have fought against slavery otherwise.
Yes he proposed colonization of the blacks, only to prove it was a bad idea. An idea he shared with Frederick Douglas who incidentally collaborated this fact in his autobiography.
He was the first president who invited a black man into the white house for council to the president.
Yes he instituted a tax to fund a war against the most hideous thing this country ever did… Enslave other humans based on skin color.
And yes, there were corrupt members in his cabinet as there were with every president during this time. We didn’t have the means to root them out like we do now (yes that’s sarcasm).
And any idiot who thinks Lincoln went into this war for any reason other than slavery knows nothing of the man. He even admitted to being for slavery to get elected so he could abolish it. He got tired of losing elections for standing against it, so he made a famous speech where he said he would leave it alone where it existed, with no intention of doing so. That lie haunted him the rest of his life, even though he knew he had no choice.
And while he won the first election with the lowest popular vote in history. The second election he won with over 50% of the popular vote which was unheard of at that time of more than two parties.
In four years time he got the emancipation proclamation passed and amended the constitution to eradicate slavery. No other President has come close to an accomplishment like this.
He remains the greatest president that ever lived. And for every miscreant that writes a negative post on him, there are 100 who attest to his greatness. And every idiot who called him names… 99% did so because of his stand on slavery.
Or, he could be dead for a century and a half and someone will STILL manage to get on his case about those things.
Plus he goaded the Confederacy to war, and wouldn’t allow them to sue for peace. A war that had nothing to do with ending slavery, either. Besides, his whole party was founded on being against our Constitutional right to own slaves. We Democrats were right to hate him.
“against our Constitutional right to own slaves.”
Are you f*cking high?
Did you ever READ the constitution?
By the way, he wasn’t a Republican in today’s terms.
Igor… the guy named himself “Obama Barack” how can you not see that as a troll?!
*turns on the fire hose and blasts the troll out of the street with it*
And dont even think of pulling the race card on me for this! Trolls dont have races, only different levels of stupidity!
It’s time for me to shoot first and ask questions later.
*fires rocket launcher*
Fire in the hole!!!
I’ve got your police report right here!
It’s time for Detective Rando to shoot first and ask questions later.
*shoots rocket launcher*
Oh yeah, uh, you might want to duck, Max.
I saw it as a troll, Maxwell, I just like to bash. BASH BASH BASH DIEEE RIP SPLIT CONQUER!
He gave control of the country to the northern liberal elite and those lazy, jobless ex-slaves! Us conservatives were right to kill him.
*grins menacingly*
And now… for the flipside…
*turns the fire hose on Bush George… mainly in the crotch area*
Yay for the northern liberal elite!
(It’s really funny that “elite” became an insult . . . how did that happen? Oh, yeah! The anti-intellectual Bush years . . . or was it before that?)
I think before Bush II. But I’m not sure if it was Gingrich-time or earlier.
How about these goodies?
Suspending the writ of habeas corpus, spent money before Congress appropriated it, and imprisoned 18,000 suspected Confederate sympathizers without trial.
Thanks for bringing that up. And everybody would be doing Lincoln impressions and making fun of his high pitched, rather squeaky voice. I know, he looks like he should have a deep voice, doesn’t he? People writing about him at the time say otherwise.
Like Mike Tyson?
Mike Tyson wrote about Abe Lincoln?!
Mike Tyson can write?
I was gonna go that route… but now YOU’LL have Mike Tyson beating your door down!
Nah- he can’t read, either.
Anyone seen that Tyson documentary that came out recently? I hate to say it, but I actually want to see that!
Sounds like Dubya, to me.
I see we’re still fighting this one.
Actually, I think we’ve been fighting this one since before we were a nation.
I wonder if FOX would like him – he was republican, after all. Not the republican from today, but still…
Well, given that we’ve just elected a pretty boy empty suit, it’s hard to argue with this lol on substance. Still doesn;t do it for me, so I’d have to say FAIL.
Aw, po’ widdle troll, no one took your bait.
You fail: Apparently you missed the voting. Next time get here sooner.
And don’t try to vote twice by saying “FAIL” when it’s already on the main page.
“I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races. I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. … And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. ”
Abraham Lincoln 9/18/1858
Good find. I wonder why that isn’t in the history books.
Well, he was, as we all are, a product of his culture and time.
Nice quote FYI… but you fail to complete the picture.
That’s from one of many public addresses Lincoln would have made… and as a member of the GOP (which was a mid-ranging version of the right-of-right wing Republican party we have now…), he’d have had to toe the hard line on the race issue. Which he did… to a point (I mean, it WAS in the Constitution, the right to own slaves, and all…)… but the whole ‘abuse of yer slaves hyuk hyuk’ thing is what stuck in his craw if I recall my history. Imagine that. You can OWN a person… but you can’t abuse them. And a ‘republican’ ruined it for us! For shame!
Lee even called him on it. Lincoln wouldn’t back down… thus we had yet another reason for the Sowth to Rise Up. And get smacked down.
It’s why some people are attacking certain Presidents about their birth location… the ‘race’ issue would be waaay to obvious these days. Plus… having more common sense than a tree stump = Liberal Elitist, apparently.
Socialism is next… mark my wordz! I mean… they even called it a ‘Social’ Health Care Reform! /gasp
Social = Socialism, right? I mean… they couldn’t possibly be talking about ‘society’ could they?
If the government owns and/or controls the health care system, what should we call it?
As one who has lived with this sort of thing, I suggest “wrong” or “brain-dead”-you know “wrong health care system”, “brain-dead public medical system”, etc., etc….
Oh c’mon, not this again!!!
*unfolds two lawn chairs, and opens a cooler full of beer*
yep. think it’s this again. beer?
Thank God. Just keep ‘em coming.
*sits down, pulls open a bag of chips*
Doritos, anyone?
You guys are awesome.
As usual, I’ll be providing the flamebertainment.
You’re a flamer? Or just flaming?
Umm, not that there’s anything wrong with that, of course.
[Rocks up with cooler full of chardonay, and barbeque chicken] Room for a little ‘un?
-Passes over and throws troll into the air, burninating him loudly, turning him into cheese and dropping his remains on the chips-
How’s that?
But I don’t like! Troll con queso has a peculiar tang to it.
“Oh c’mon, not this again!!!”
Well, his name IS sisyphusredux.
So it’s right wing nutjobs fault that Lincoln was racist? Even if he was against slavery, he was obviously still racist, and that is STILL today’s republicans fault?
WTF
If another regular read this differently please enlighten me. Maybe I”m reading too much into it.
I think he’s saying “Lincoln was against the abuse of people, despite the fact that he was admittedly racist”, and that it was a Republican who managed to overcome the issue that they were a different race, even though now the Republican party seems to think “conservative” means “attempt to revert to 1950′s on all issues”.
Citation, please?
Well the freeing of the slaves was more of a military move then a political move. It was to hurt the south in more ways by removing a labor force.
try again – destroying the infrastructure, the antics of the reconstruction period (see prez johnson’s reneging of lincolns policies), passing laws controlling where former slaves could live, how much land they could own, work they could do etc (see black codes), all done with the sole intent on making sure the south would never rise again is what hurt the south. the labor force was still there to a great degree and could have been paid wages and treated as equals but that just didn’t happen. the labor force didn’t leave until it was discovered they weren’t treated worse in the industrial north and were paid if not living wages, far more than they would have made as share-croppers in the south.
I think the cable news commentators, both left and right, would be criticizing his suspension of habeas corpus, ordering the largest mass execution of Native Americans in US history, his illegal use of war powers, shutting down of newspapers,the level of influence the railroad industry had in his policies towards the Plains Indians and the indefinite detention of civilians.
I don’t know too much about it, but if you’re referring to the hanging of 38 Dakota in 1862, I’d disagree that it’s the largest mass execution. Sand Creek was like an execution, and it was larger. What the Spanish soldiers did in the early 16th century was pretty horrific . . . but there are no specific numbers.
What I did last night in the 16th hour was pretty horrific, too.
But no one is complaining about that, now are they?
That’s because your actions silenced them — for good.
Muahahaha!
I would also like to point out that the only slaves Lincoln freed with the Emancipation Proclamation were those that were in states that were in rebellion against their sovereign government. In other words, states like Maryland, New York, Rhode Island and many others were able to keep their slaves at that point. And if you think these states didn’t have slavery, ask who served the monied because they weren’t going to pay someone a wage while their southern counterparts had “free” labor.
Slavery is wrong no matter what, but I get so sick of “yankees” coming down her and telling me how much better they are then me because they live in a “Union” state. Come on people the Union had slavery too, and I hate the thought of racism. GET OFF MY BACK.
(I know not everyone is like this, but I really have had that happen to me)
Brown University in Rhode Island admits they were founded on money made from the triangle trade.
A town near me in Massachusetts has uncovered and remodeled slave quarters near the house of a wealthy ‘town father’.
Anyone who claims that their state was innocent of slavery is either lying, or they live in Alaska. (Hawaii was pretty bad with the pineapple and sugar plantations).
Actually, I’m pretty sure Oregon never got any slaves, either. Though, until the 1970′s, it was illegal for a black person to be inside town after dark in the small town I grew up in. There probably would have been lynchings and cross burnings there too, but no blacks were dumb enough to live there!
Yeah, but Lincoln would step down off his podium and kick all their a$$es in bare knuckle fisticuffs, so they wouldn’t dare!
Skinny guys fight till they’re burger.
Thank you, Mr. Durden.
walk 2 television, remove exterior cable… at once.
yep, the media is pretty rough. good thing we can change the channel, or read another newspaper, or whatever. good thing it’s not all state run media….. or is it? whatever i hear on the media doesn’t mean anything untill i see it come true on my income or state and local taxes. untill then i’ll just keep work’n and “helping” those few out who can’t lower themselves to go flip some burgers or hold a slow/stop sign for 40 hours a week. oh, and i’m pretty sure some of the biggest headlines would be made by reducing taxes…. A LOT. oh wait….then the gov. doesn’t have all that money to “create” jobs, why would they ever leave it to the private sector? i hear ford’s doing pretty good for not “selling out” to the gov. ok, i think my soap box just fell apart, i’m done.
Didn’t somebody say something about conservatives shooting themselves in the foot a few lol’s back?
*facepalm*
Actually, I know a lot of people working two jobs flipping burgers; work days start between 5AM and 9AM and end twelve or fifteen hours later because they have to work two jobs just to pay the rent and put food on the table, and they still fall beneath the poverty line. Please get off this “why don’t they just get a damned job” meme and grow up.
Forgot “high, reedy voice.”
Some interesting reading, certainly not what we are used to hearing. (Link)
Those *are* rather wide lapels.
Makes me wonder if they had ‘flair’ back then?
Never to much flair.
If Lincoln were alive in today’s world of visual media, he would never have been elected. How do you think Kennedy beat Nixon?
But the most strident commentary would be driven by the fact that he was an evil Republican bent on oppressing the African-American – like Republicans have always done.
hey, his crazy wife was my 5th great aunt….and we are crazy too, he did have marfan syndrome either…
A 1962 theory that Abraham Lincoln had Marfan syndrome has little currency today.[50][51] According to a 2007 theory, it is more likely that he had a different disorder, multiple endocrine neoplasia type 2B, that caused skeletal features almost identical to Marfan syndrome.[52]
Wikipedia baby! if it’s on the interwebs, then it must be true!!! lol oh FIF i miss you
Cheers for that. The 2007 MEN theory accounts better for his life span than the MS one did, but the comments about how the disease affected his physical appearance are true either way.
i mean he did not have it
If this is supposed to be a pardoning for Barack Obama, then that’s fine. This doesn’t change the fact that he is a negligent, overly-paid, socialist, dishonest, cry-baby. Good day. ^_^
If this is supposed to prove your point, then that’s fine. It doesn’t change the fact that you provide no proof, but display the fact that you are a moron who doesn’t realize that the President isn’t paid any differently than the last, misinformed, fact-distorting, liar.
Good day. In the place of the smiley face, I’d like to offer up my suggestion that you choke and die.
Damn. I wanted to suggest that he choke and die. I’ll just add that he should choke and die on George Bush’s genitalia specifically. Rando’s not in a good mood today.
Actually, if Lincoln were president today, none of the things in that caption would be the case. The press would fawn over him, fail to report on his mistakes, claim that anyone inquiring into his health issues is unamerican, and that anyone who disagrees with him even mildly in any way is treasonous. You see, Lincoln was a republican.
Did you know that the Gettysburg Address was considered dishwatery, and not very moving at that time?
Actually, they’d be on his case for suspending Habeus Corpus, declaring war on a sovereign state, oppressing the working class, drafting the poor into the army to be cannon fodder (literally in this case?) in an illegal war.
…and suggesting that: he was born in France
…and that he was racist
…and that his plan to provide medical care for soldiers would bankrupt America
actually, if he were president he would have censored the media of all of the bad stuff said against him – like he did in the newspapers when he WAS president
YES!
Lincoln was a great and humanitarian president… HOW can you talk crap about him like that?
i know! i hate these people who do that! and look at all these people agreeing and laughing about it! this makes me sick!!!!!!!
I found this link (French) http://www.encyclopedie-incomplete.com/?Lincoln-Kennedy-Droles-de
YOU JERK HE WAS ONE OF THE BEST PRESIDENTS WHO EVER LIVED!!!!!!!!!
You read the caption as being anti-Lincoln?
You forgot how he wanted to Cut & Run from the Mexican War.
This guy has huge ears. Which movie was it?
One thing that never changes, though; male Republican politicians with secret boyfriends.
seriously, they sat the president of the United STates down for a photograph, and DIDN’T have him comb his hair and straighten his tie? Back in the day when sitting for a photograph meant sitting still and stiff for a long time…
he does look a mess, doesn’t he? good ole abe
Actually, He’d shut down cable news shows that didn’t agree with him and throw anyone questioning his policy in the media in jail without due process.
I mean, I love the guy, but he started a war and suspended habeus corpus. Re-read your history books ladies and gents, see what you find.
First p∅ost!
You know, Abraham Lincoln did a lot for this country. CNN, NBC, and all those other OBAMA WORSHIPING channels would do that.
How bout we send Obama back to that time and see what happens then, huh?
Well – I wouldn’t call Caerula an asshole, I have no idea about who s/he is.
But sooner or later, there will be posts trying to point out the lesserness of others’ belief systems.
aren’t you just now doing that?