Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

Comparing two Presidential Museums

1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2012 12:15:28 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Recently I was on vacation and I went down by car from Wisconsin to my relatives in Little Rock, Arkansas. After the vacation, as we drove up to Wisconsin, we made a stop in Springfield, Illinois. In Little Rock I saw Bill Clinton's presidential museum. In Springfield I saw Abraham Lincoln's presidential museum. Today I am going to compare these two. The greatest president had the better museum after all right? That means the party affiliated with that museum is a better party to me. Let's compare them.

Bill Clinton (Democrat) has a pretty nice museum in Little Rock. I will admit out of the two, it is designed better in terms of exterior architecture. The entire museum is practically lifted from the ground (except for the entrance which has stairs to the higher levels. When you enter the building you get to see the presidential limo (Abe does not have that in his). So I took a few pictures and we moved on. I will skip the special exhibits and get right to the areas describing Clinton's life and presidency. There is a small display about his early life, but mainly the 1992 presidential election. A series of different buttons from the campaign and an election map are shown. You get the real Cabinet feeling as a replica of the room, furniture and all decorations, is out for everyone to touch and sit in. At each chair, there is a special computer on the table where you can learn about which secretary sat there. There is also a replica of what the oval office looked like when Clinton was president, but no one is allowed to even go in the room. Next up is Clinton's presidency. There is a big hall and there are different areas on each side of it each describing a certain part of his presidency (economy, education, foreign affairs, etc.). Then you move up to an area showing what life was like at the White House. There you get to see items from a dress the Mrs. Clinton worse to an actual table from a state dinner to gifts from foreign ministers. That is it.

Now we will go to Republican Abe Lincoln. Will his museum, and thus his party, be better than Bill's. When you walk you are enormously overtaken by its size. There are two main rooms in the main hall. The entrance to one is a replica of a log cabin and the other is an entrance to the White House. Bill has nothing like that. Around the entrance you see actual wax figures of the Lincolns and people like John W. Booth, George McClellan, William T. Sherman, and Frederick Douglas. Bill has nothing like that. We obviously start with Lincoln's personal life and thus enter the log cabin. It gives you a real feeling of Lincoln's life as a child in that cabin. Then you enter his life into politics. This includes a series of wax models depictic a slave trade and one that really gives you the look of Lincoln compared to Democratic Senator Stephen Douglas, when they famously debated. We then enter a room giving a depicition as if the 1860 election were today. A news host is talking and then a commercial comes up for each four of the major candidates and their subjects. Lincoln's was about preserving the union, Douglas had popular sovereinghty, Breckinridge and Bell discussed slavery and its rights for states. Then that ends so we walk across the hall to the White House replica. In the main entrance of it we see one of Mrs. Lincoln's dresses (like Mrs. Clinton's), but unlike Mrs. Clinton's around Mrs. Lincoln's dress are other dresses from other real people at that time (her social friends and rivals' dresses). We enter the next room showing a beautiful painting for Fort Sumter being attacked those no good CSA traitors. We then enter a hall giving you the feeling of how much Lincoln was made fun of and criticized during his presidency. All over the walls are political cartoons depicting Lincoln as a terrible person. Speakers from the walls have voice actors pretending to be people at the time, gossiping about bad things on the president and his wife. I will admit that I did feel something in there because it gives you the feeling of how any president is criticized and how he has to deal with it. Then comes another emotional display; the death of Lincoln's son. The display shows what it really would have been like in his room in his dying minutes as his mother and father comfort him. It really gives you a feeling of what a terrible state Lincoln was in. Then we enter the Civil War. Different uniforms from the north and south are shown and a projector on the wall show an awesome map of each battle and how it effected the frontlines in the war. We next enter a room depicting Lincoln's cabinet. While you cannot sit and touch anything, it instead displays in wax figures if the cabinet was in session. There is some information about each cabinet member, but it really makes you wonder what were they always discussing in their conversation. Another display of a room shows more wax figures, of Lincoln giving a speech to people on the Emancipation Proclamation and how it is good, not bad. Then you get the feeling of being in the streets of DC when the war is announced over. I must admit it gave me a feeling of real victory in war and how the CSA got what it had coming! Another wax replica is shown of Booth sneaking into the box while Lincoln, his wife, and their guests watch the play. We finally end with what I must admit nearly mad me cry, nearly. We walked through a dark room with a replica of Lincoln's casket at the funeral. It was really sad when you think about if you were there. The greatest president of all time now dead and there is nothing ou can do, but gaze on at his casket with his dead corpse. Anyway, outside some heckler was yelling. He had a Ron Paul shirt on had a Libertarian hat, with a sign saying Lincoln was a terrible president. It toom 5 seconds for the nearest two men to kick his butt and then the police finally arrived and arrested him because he had been drinking (a bottle was in his pocket anyway). In a unifying moment the crowd that gathered, as well as myself, cheered "Lincoln! Lincoln!" and then we left.

Anyway, the Clinton museum could not hold a candlestick to the Lincoln museum. Lincoln had a way better museum, thus he was a way better president, thus the Republican Party is the best pary ever. Goodnight everybody!
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2012 10:42:31 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/8/2012 12:15:28 AM, 1Historygenius wrote:
Recently I was on vacation and I went down by car from Wisconsin to my relatives in Little Rock, Arkansas. After the vacation, as we drove up to Wisconsin, we made a stop in Springfield, Illinois. In Little Rock I saw Bill Clinton's presidential museum. In Springfield I saw Abraham Lincoln's presidential museum. Today I am going to compare these two. The greatest president had the better museum after all right? That means the party affiliated with that museum is a better party to me. Let's compare them.

Bill Clinton (Democrat) has a pretty nice museum in Little Rock. I will admit out of the two, it is designed better in terms of exterior architecture. The entire museum is practically lifted from the ground (except for the entrance which has stairs to the higher levels. When you enter the building you get to see the presidential limo (Abe does not have that in his). So I took a few pictures and we moved on. I will skip the special exhibits and get right to the areas describing Clinton's life and presidency. There is a small display about his early life, but mainly the 1992 presidential election. A series of different buttons from the campaign and an election map are shown. You get the real Cabinet feeling as a replica of the room, furniture and all decorations, is out for everyone to touch and sit in. At each chair, there is a special computer on the table where you can learn about which secretary sat there. There is also a replica of what the oval office looked like when Clinton was president, but no one is allowed to even go in the room. Next up is Clinton's presidency. There is a big hall and there are different areas on each side of it each describing a certain part of his presidency (economy, education, foreign affairs, etc.). Then you move up to an area showing what life was like at the White House. There you get to see items from a dress the Mrs. Clinton worse to an actual table from a state dinner to gifts from foreign ministers. That is it.

Now we will go to Republican Abe Lincoln. Will his museum, and thus his party, be better than Bill's. When you walk you are enormously overtaken by its size. There are two main rooms in the main hall. The entrance to one is a replica of a log cabin and the other is an entrance to the White House. Bill has nothing like that. Around the entrance you see actual wax figures of the Lincolns and people like John W. Booth, George McClellan, William T. Sherman, and Frederick Douglas. Bill has nothing like that. We obviously start with Lincoln's personal life and thus enter the log cabin. It gives you a real feeling of Lincoln's life as a child in that cabin. Then you enter his life into politics. This includes a series of wax models depictic a slave trade and one that really gives you the look of Lincoln compared to Democratic Senator Stephen Douglas, when they famously debated. We then enter a room giving a depicition as if the 1860 election were today. A news host is talking and then a commercial comes up for each four of the major candidates and their subjects. Lincoln's was about preserving the union, Douglas had popular sovereinghty, Breckinridge and Bell discussed slavery and its rights for states. Then that ends so we walk across the hall to the White House replica. In the main entrance of it we see one of Mrs. Lincoln's dresses (like Mrs. Clinton's), but unlike Mrs. Clinton's around Mrs. Lincoln's dress are other dresses from other real people at that time (her social friends and rivals' dresses). We enter the next room showing a beautiful painting for Fort Sumter being attacked those no good CSA traitors. We then enter a hall giving you the feeling of how much Lincoln was made fun of and criticized during his presidency. All over the walls are political cartoons depicting Lincoln as a terrible person. Speakers from the walls have voice actors pretending to be people at the time, gossiping about bad things on the president and his wife. I will admit that I did feel something in there because it gives you the feeling of how any president is criticized and how he has to deal with it. Then comes another emotional display; the death of Lincoln's son. The display shows what it really would have been like in his room in his dying minutes as his mother and father comfort him. It really gives you a feeling of what a terrible state Lincoln was in. Then we enter the Civil War. Different uniforms from the north and south are shown and a projector on the wall show an awesome map of each battle and how it effected the frontlines in the war. We next enter a room depicting Lincoln's cabinet. While you cannot sit and touch anything, it instead displays in wax figures if the cabinet was in session. There is some information about each cabinet member, but it really makes you wonder what were they always discussing in their conversation. Another display of a room shows more wax figures, of Lincoln giving a speech to people on the Emancipation Proclamation and how it is good, not bad. Then you get the feeling of being in the streets of DC when the war is announced over. I must admit it gave me a feeling of real victory in war and how the CSA got what it had coming! Another wax replica is shown of Booth sneaking into the box while Lincoln, his wife, and their guests watch the play. We finally end with what I must admit nearly mad me cry, nearly. We walked through a dark room with a replica of Lincoln's casket at the funeral. It was really sad when you think about if you were there. The greatest president of all time now dead and there is nothing ou can do, but gaze on at his casket with his dead corpse. Anyway, outside some heckler was yelling. He had a Ron Paul shirt on had a Libertarian hat, with a sign saying Lincoln was a terrible president. It toom 5 seconds for the nearest two men to kick his butt and then the police finally arrived and arrested him because he had been drinking (a bottle was in his pocket anyway). In a unifying moment the crowd that gathered, as well as myself, cheered "Lincoln! Lincoln!" and then we left.

Anyway, the Clinton museum could not hold a candlestick to the Lincoln museum. Lincoln had a way better museum, thus he was a way better president, thus the Republican Party is the best pary ever. Goodnight everybody!

Interesting comparisons! Of course it is worth noting that the republicans of 150 years ago were nothing like the republicans of today (same goes for democrats). I mean, Lincon's defining assertion was that the states must be kept together under the federal government, whereas republicans today seem to want the states to be as disconnected from each other as possible.
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2012 5:19:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
One mistake I have made was that I typed toom instead of took. Just for you to know.
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 8:24:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/9/2012 6:08:18 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Why does the fact that the Museum was better mean that he was a better president from a better party?

Obviously if he was a better president he would get a better museum to show his legacy. If he was a better president thhen his party is obviously better because they support him.
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 8:42:01 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/9/2012 8:24:55 AM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 7/9/2012 6:08:18 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Why does the fact that the Museum was better mean that he was a better president from a better party?

Obviously if he was a better president he would get a better museum to show his legacy.
This is nonsense. He gets a "better museum" (which you are subjectively deciding is better) because he gets more funding from Congress. It doesn't make him a better President, however. It just means that Congress was able to set aside more money for him. There is nothing obvious about your assertion except that it is an assertion.
If he was a better president thhen his party is obviously better because they support him.
Most modern Democrats support Lincoln.
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 8:57:52 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/9/2012 8:42:01 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 7/9/2012 8:24:55 AM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 7/9/2012 6:08:18 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Why does the fact that the Museum was better mean that he was a better president from a better party?

Obviously if he was a better president he would get a better museum to show his legacy.
This is nonsense. He gets a "better museum" (which you are subjectively deciding is better) because he gets more funding from Congress. It doesn't make him a better President, however. It just means that Congress was able to set aside more money for him. There is nothing obvious about your assertion except that it is an assertion.

Yeah so Congress thinks he is awesome president to.

If he was a better president thhen his party is obviously better because they support him.
Most modern Democrats support Lincoln.

Yeah because they know they cannot condemn his awesomeness.
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 8:58:21 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/9/2012 8:24:55 AM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 7/9/2012 6:08:18 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Why does the fact that the Museum was better mean that he was a better president from a better party?

Obviously if he was a better president he would get a better museum to show his legacy. If he was a better president thhen his party is obviously better because they support him.

If it was obvious, then it wouldn't be questioned. Since it's being question, it is not obvious (at least not to others) so simply reasserting that it's obvious does precisely di ck in explaining yourself. I assumed you were simply being hyperbolic, but given the chance to explain that you have decided to continue this line.

The association, until you explicitly demonstrate it, is non-existent. Reference to support is argument ad populum.

Furthermore, you really can't say that Lincoln had more support when half the country ceded in response to his election.

One thing you've failed to consider is the relative weath of the states in which the museums reside. I imagine that Illinois is a wealthier state than Arkansas.

There is also the issue of notability. Being "notable" doesn't make a president better. I imagine a museum dedicated to Pol Pot would be larger, prettier, and contain more information than Norodom Sihamoni. At least, one created by Americans. Maybe King Sihamoni is more notable in Cambodia than here. The point is, Lincoln has more notability due to circumstances out of his control, giving him the opportunity to deal with them and make history.

If anything, Clinton is less notable because it was a relatively low key point in American history. No large-scale wars, no terrorist attacks. The biggest drama was him getting a blowjob from an intern.

I still think you're partically being facetious, but, whatever.
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 9:14:27 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/9/2012 8:58:21 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/9/2012 8:24:55 AM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 7/9/2012 6:08:18 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Why does the fact that the Museum was better mean that he was a better president from a better party?

Obviously if he was a better president he would get a better museum to show his legacy. If he was a better president thhen his party is obviously better because they support him.

If it was obvious, then it wouldn't be questioned. Since it's being question, it is not obvious (at least not to others) so simply reasserting that it's obvious does precisely di ck in explaining yourself. I assumed you were simply being hyperbolic, but given the chance to explain that you have decided to continue this line.

The association, until you explicitly demonstrate it, is non-existent. Reference to support is argument ad populum.

Furthermore, you really can't say that Lincoln had more support when half the country ceded in response to his election.

One thing you've failed to consider is the relative weath of the states in which the museums reside. I imagine that Illinois is a wealthier state than Arkansas.

There is also the issue of notability. Being "notable" doesn't make a president better. I imagine a museum dedicated to Pol Pot would be larger, prettier, and contain more information than Norodom Sihamoni. At least, one created by Americans. Maybe King Sihamoni is more notable in Cambodia than here. The point is, Lincoln has more notability due to circumstances out of his control, giving him the opportunity to deal with them and make history.

If anything, Clinton is less notable because it was a relatively low key point in American history. No large-scale wars, no terrorist attacks. The biggest drama was him getting a blowjob from an intern.

I still think you're partically being facetious, but, whatever.

Yeah, well your wrong.
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 9:16:53 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/9/2012 8:57:52 AM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 7/9/2012 8:42:01 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 7/9/2012 8:24:55 AM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 7/9/2012 6:08:18 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Why does the fact that the Museum was better mean that he was a better president from a better party?

Obviously if he was a better president he would get a better museum to show his legacy.
This is nonsense. He gets a "better museum" (which you are subjectively deciding is better) because he gets more funding from Congress. It doesn't make him a better President, however. It just means that Congress was able to set aside more money for him. There is nothing obvious about your assertion except that it is an assertion.

Yeah so Congress thinks he is awesome president to.

Not necessarily. It just means that the people in power at the time supported him/were of his party.
If he was a better president thhen his party is obviously better because they support him.
Most modern Democrats support Lincoln.

Yeah because they know they cannot condemn his awesomeness.
Lincoln wasn't awesome by any standards. He destroyed civil liberties and only freed the slaves as a tactical move. He didn't actually believe in equality (some members of his party did, however).
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 9:17:50 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/9/2012 9:14:27 AM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 7/9/2012 8:58:21 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/9/2012 8:24:55 AM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 7/9/2012 6:08:18 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Why does the fact that the Museum was better mean that he was a better president from a better party?

Obviously if he was a better president he would get a better museum to show his legacy. If he was a better president thhen his party is obviously better because they support him.

If it was obvious, then it wouldn't be questioned. Since it's being question, it is not obvious (at least not to others) so simply reasserting that it's obvious does precisely di ck in explaining yourself. I assumed you were simply being hyperbolic, but given the chance to explain that you have decided to continue this line.

The association, until you explicitly demonstrate it, is non-existent. Reference to support is argument ad populum.

Furthermore, you really can't say that Lincoln had more support when half the country ceded in response to his election.

One thing you've failed to consider is the relative weath of the states in which the museums reside. I imagine that Illinois is a wealthier state than Arkansas.

There is also the issue of notability. Being "notable" doesn't make a president better. I imagine a museum dedicated to Pol Pot would be larger, prettier, and contain more information than Norodom Sihamoni. At least, one created by Americans. Maybe King Sihamoni is more notable in Cambodia than here. The point is, Lincoln has more notability due to circumstances out of his control, giving him the opportunity to deal with them and make history.

If anything, Clinton is less notable because it was a relatively low key point in American history. No large-scale wars, no terrorist attacks. The biggest drama was him getting a blowjob from an intern.

I still think you're partically being facetious, but, whatever.

Yeah, well your wrong.

My wrong what?
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 9:20:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/9/2012 9:16:53 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 7/9/2012 8:57:52 AM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 7/9/2012 8:42:01 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 7/9/2012 8:24:55 AM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 7/9/2012 6:08:18 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Why does the fact that the Museum was better mean that he was a better president from a better party?

Obviously if he was a better president he would get a better museum to show his legacy.
This is nonsense. He gets a "better museum" (which you are subjectively deciding is better) because he gets more funding from Congress. It doesn't make him a better President, however. It just means that Congress was able to set aside more money for him. There is nothing obvious about your assertion except that it is an assertion.

Yeah so Congress thinks he is awesome president to.

Not necessarily. It just means that the people in power at the time supported him/were of his party.
If he was a better president thhen his party is obviously better because they support him.
Most modern Democrats support Lincoln.

Yeah because they know they cannot condemn his awesomeness.
Lincoln wasn't awesome by any standards. He destroyed civil liberties and only freed the slaves as a tactical move. He didn't actually believe in equality (some members of his party did, however).

If he was not awesome you would hear politicians bad mouthing him everyday and the expert historians, including myself, rank him dead last. But we don't because we know he was awesome. He made awesome tactical moves like the one you just said. He simply did unconstitutional things to protect the Constitution and that is OK by all of our standards. Remember the words of Richard Nixon: "When the president does something that means that it is not illegal." He is simply echoing Lincoln, one of his heroes.
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 11:14:28 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Wait this guy isn't joking?

Oh, well in that case, Joseph Stalin has a pretty nice museum. Come one everybody, I think a list of museums is in order!
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 11:20:49 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/9/2012 11:14:28 AM, Frederick53 wrote:
Wait this guy isn't joking?

Oh, well in that case, Joseph Stalin has a pretty nice museum. Come one everybody, I think a list of museums is in order!

Ha.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 11:22:31 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
If he was not awesome you would hear politicians bad mouthing him everyday and the expert historians, including myself, rank him dead last.
Just because he was not awesome does not mean he is the worst President. Is there only one president who is not awesome?

Is Obama awesome? I'm sure you don't think so, but most Historians rank him in the top ten.

What are your historical credentials, by the way? I'd love to read your PhD thesis.
But we don't because we know he was awesome. He made awesome tactical moves like the one you just said. He simply did unconstitutional things to protect the Constitution and that is OK by all of our standards.
Well, considering the fact that I just said it wasn't ok by our standards, it's not unanimous.

Plus, doing unconstitutional things to "protect" the Constitution is nonsensical. It demolishes the integrity of the document.

Moreover, my objection to his actions stems from notions of rights that are extra-constitutional. Even if the Constitution did not exist, the steps he took to abolish civil liberties were unjust.
Remember the words of Richard Nixon: "When the president does something that means that it is not illegal."
LOL

Ok, so if the President murdered you tomorrow, that wouldn't be illegal? Since when are national figures above the law/moral systems?

You're pretty much advocating the cult worship of Lincoln.
He is simply echoing Lincoln, one of his heroes.

LOL, of course he did. He did illegal things too.
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 2:08:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/9/2012 11:22:31 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
If he was not awesome you would hear politicians bad mouthing him everyday and the expert historians, including myself, rank him dead last.
Just because he was not awesome does not mean he is the worst President. Is there only one president who is not awesome?

Is Obama awesome? I'm sure you don't think so, but most Historians rank him in the top ten.

What are your historical credentials, by the way? I'd love to read your PhD thesis.
But we don't because we know he was awesome. He made awesome tactical moves like the one you just said. He simply did unconstitutional things to protect the Constitution and that is OK by all of our standards.
Well, considering the fact that I just said it wasn't ok by our standards, it's not unanimous.

Plus, doing unconstitutional things to "protect" the Constitution is nonsensical. It demolishes the integrity of the document.

Moreover, my objection to his actions stems from notions of rights that are extra-constitutional. Even if the Constitution did not exist, the steps he took to abolish civil liberties were unjust.
Remember the words of Richard Nixon: "When the president does something that means that it is not illegal."
LOL

Ok, so if the President murdered you tomorrow, that wouldn't be illegal? Since when are national figures above the law/moral systems?

You're pretty much advocating the cult worship of Lincoln.
He is simply echoing Lincoln, one of his heroes.

LOL, of course he did. He did illegal things too.

All presidents sometimes do illegal things to protect the Constitution. Also, if the CSA marched on Washington what if some radical soldiers burned the document? Then it would not exist. That is why it should be protected in an unconstituional way sometimes if it is in serious danger.

Also, obviously they would not do something is blatant as kill someone or else they would become very unpopular.
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 2:11:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/9/2012 2:08:49 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 7/9/2012 11:22:31 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
If he was not awesome you would hear politicians bad mouthing him everyday and the expert historians, including myself, rank him dead last.
Just because he was not awesome does not mean he is the worst President. Is there only one president who is not awesome?

Is Obama awesome? I'm sure you don't think so, but most Historians rank him in the top ten.

What are your historical credentials, by the way? I'd love to read your PhD thesis.
But we don't because we know he was awesome. He made awesome tactical moves like the one you just said. He simply did unconstitutional things to protect the Constitution and that is OK by all of our standards.
Well, considering the fact that I just said it wasn't ok by our standards, it's not unanimous.

Plus, doing unconstitutional things to "protect" the Constitution is nonsensical. It demolishes the integrity of the document.

Moreover, my objection to his actions stems from notions of rights that are extra-constitutional. Even if the Constitution did not exist, the steps he took to abolish civil liberties were unjust.
Remember the words of Richard Nixon: "When the president does something that means that it is not illegal."
LOL

Ok, so if the President murdered you tomorrow, that wouldn't be illegal? Since when are national figures above the law/moral systems?

You're pretty much advocating the cult worship of Lincoln.
He is simply echoing Lincoln, one of his heroes.

LOL, of course he did. He did illegal things too.

All presidents sometimes do illegal things to protect the Constitution.
Is/Ought logical fallacy. This doesn't make it just. In addition, it's a bare assertion fallacy. You need to provide proof for this statement.
Also, if the CSA marched on Washington what if some radical soldiers burned the document? Then it would not exist.
That's bull. There were copies of the document that were made. It's not like we will lose all of our natural rights if the Constitution's original copy is burned.
That is why it should be protected in an unconstituional way sometimes if it is in serious danger.

That negates the point of the document in the first place.
Also, obviously they would not do something is blatant as kill someone or else they would become very unpopular.
Yeah, that's why FDR didn't become unpopular when he set up concentration camps, right?
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 7:55:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/9/2012 2:11:10 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 7/9/2012 2:08:49 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 7/9/2012 11:22:31 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
If he was not awesome you would hear politicians bad mouthing him everyday and the expert historians, including myself, rank him dead last.
Just because he was not awesome does not mean he is the worst President. Is there only one president who is not awesome?

Is Obama awesome? I'm sure you don't think so, but most Historians rank him in the top ten.

What are your historical credentials, by the way? I'd love to read your PhD thesis.
But we don't because we know he was awesome. He made awesome tactical moves like the one you just said. He simply did unconstitutional things to protect the Constitution and that is OK by all of our standards.
Well, considering the fact that I just said it wasn't ok by our standards, it's not unanimous.

Plus, doing unconstitutional things to "protect" the Constitution is nonsensical. It demolishes the integrity of the document.

Moreover, my objection to his actions stems from notions of rights that are extra-constitutional. Even if the Constitution did not exist, the steps he took to abolish civil liberties were unjust.
Remember the words of Richard Nixon: "When the president does something that means that it is not illegal."
LOL

Ok, so if the President murdered you tomorrow, that wouldn't be illegal? Since when are national figures above the law/moral systems?

You're pretty much advocating the cult worship of Lincoln.
He is simply echoing Lincoln, one of his heroes.

LOL, of course he did. He did illegal things too.

All presidents sometimes do illegal things to protect the Constitution.
Is/Ought logical fallacy. This doesn't make it just. In addition, it's a bare assertion fallacy. You need to provide proof for this statement.
Also, if the CSA marched on Washington what if some radical soldiers burned the document? Then it would not exist.
That's bull. There were copies of the document that were made. It's not like we will lose all of our natural rights if the Constitution's original copy is burned.
That is why it should be protected in an unconstituional way sometimes if it is in serious danger.

That negates the point of the document in the first place.
Also, obviously they would not do something is blatant as kill someone or else they would become very unpopular.
Yeah, that's why FDR didn't become unpopular when he set up concentration camps, right?

People were too busy fighting and making tanks to notice.
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
Aaronroy
Posts: 749
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2012 6:23:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I love the smell of false premises; especially right before dinner. They provide for a mental sense of a metaphorical spice to go on my haddock.

Once again, thank you for the laugh, HistoryGenius!
turn down for h'what
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2012 7:34:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
One thing I should point out, is that Abraham Lincoln is perhaps our second most famous president....maybe first. Basically, he's gonna have a better museum. A lot more went on during his presidency, and people tend to like him a lot more often.

Clinton on the other end will end up being one of those presidents that we only know from learning the presidents in middle school.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2012 7:55:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/9/2012 8:24:55 AM, 1Historygenius wrote:
Obviously if he was a better president he would get a better museum to show his legacy. If he was a better president thhen his party is obviously better because they support him.

Obviously.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."