Al Gore likens Barack Obama to Abraham Lincoln

[FINALCAT]

wtf is al gore smoking

[Conan568]

I liken Al Gore to a steaming pile of dog-shit.

[wc470]

obama is nothing like lincoln

[IslandSpiceDreamin]

ROFL ... goofus supporting doofus

WHAT experience???

Mandate from history???

HUMILITY ??? bwah hahaha

[stevencool104]

"Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people (the Negroes) are to be free."

This is what is written on the Jefferson Memorial - AN INCOMPLETE QUOTE - ". . . nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government." (Letter to George Washington, Jan. 4, 1786)

This LIAR talks of BO's experience? 10 years in Politics - 7 as a State Senator - and 3 as at the federal level.

NOT EVEN ONE FULL TERM AS A FEDERAL SENATOR!

[BurgNGold328]

All this from a man who is helping stop global warming,but has a $30,000 a year electric bill!

[gangstanbg]

that second guy posts comments everywhere... chaplain... lol loser

[RoydenOral]

What an idiot. The south did not invade the north. What have you been smoking Algore?

[chaplainphil]

If obama thinks he is even 1% of the man Abraham Lincoln was he has already over-estimated himself. Lincoln was truthful -- obama lies, Lincoln liberated people -- obama wants to enslave us to socialism, Lincoln was humble -- obama is arrogant, Lincoln was intelligent -- obama just thinks he is intelligent.

[saveen3]

I do not agree with you. Abraham Lincoln had a shift of social and political philosophy during his administration. Before taking office, his views of slavery matched the ones of men from his time, it was a way of life. During the civil war, he needed hurt the south, therefore, he knew by freeing the slaves, he can win the war. He was very political. Also, socialism is not evil as you believe.  Living in Canada, I see the benefits of helping those in need- peace, respect, and integrity.

[chaplainphil]

Thank you for your very thoughtful comments. Whether Mr. Lincoln's decision for emancipation was strictly political or his personal disgust of slavery (not all people tolerated it) has been, and forever will be, a question. I tend to think it was mostly the latter, although in his desire to keep the country together it re-ignited the North to quell the rebellion. Re: socialism, as a Canadian myself (currently in the US) I know of what you speak. It has its plusses, but certainly its minuses.

[NiemandBinich]

What was the one big event that occurred during the Lincoln presidency? Hmmmm?

[iambile]

I wouldn't call Lincoln a great person. In fact I'd say he was likely the worst president the USA has seen. Check out Thomas Dilorenzo's books 'The Real Lincoln' and 'Lincoln Unmasked.' Or look for the CSPAN Q&A with him (nbFty9nZUac on youtube).

[mustangkyle1]

That looks like a awesome book. Thanks

[clarkiscool]

Come on, one historian says something radical and many other historians disagree, but you trust the one radical historian

[iambile]

One? Do you think things like suspending habeas corpus, jailing those who disagreed with him, printing unconstitutional money, that the Emancipation Proclamation did nothing, that he was a nationalist, that the north had put the south in a difficult economic situation, etc. are disputable?

And given that history is written by the winners wouldn't be important for intellectual honest individuals to investigate those who have other views instead of those who hold the popular one?

[clarkiscool]

Have you ever read the constitution? He had the right to suspend habeas corpus due to the fact that the country was in a serious war extremely close to home. He jailed suspected spies. What does the emancipation proclamation have do with anything? He was not president during the time that dealt with southern v northern economics. Read the constitution and you will find that the states seceding was illegal. That portion of the constitution was not written after the war either.

[iambile]

I think you should read the Constitution. Article 1, Section 9, Clause 2. Article 1 about the legislative branch. Section 9 being about congressional limits. Lincoln had no authority to do so. Congress didn't pass the Habeas Corpus Act till 1863. Lincoln did suspended it in 1861. Look up Ex parte Merryman. As for secession... please point me to the location which forbids it. I've never seen it. Have you read the Kentucky & Virginia Resolutions of 1798. What about the Declaration of Independence?

[clarkiscool]

I believe it is in section 1 clause 10. Constitution has been the main document by which the US is run. The Kentucky virginia resolutions do not cancel out the constitution. All states that signed the constitution can not simply break their pledge. The declaration also was written before the constitution and the US was not governed by it.

[iambile]

You man A1S10C1? That does not say a state can not secede. It says they can't be both a state of the USA and "enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation." If they secede they are no longer a state and can do as they wish. I didn't say the resolutions overrode the constitution only to imply they make it clear how it's intended to work. No state would have entered into the union if it couldn't leave. Read the Virginia's, New York's and Rhode Island's ratifying documents.

[clarkiscool]

It is the belief that if you sign a document you are bound by the statements such as when the states joined the union. There secession is a broken agreement which can be characterized as a rebellion.

[iambile]

That's ridiculous. Seems to me clearly that prior to the civil war the states knew they could leave. New England practically seceded shortly after the nations creation. Besides, rebellion: "Open, armed, and organized resistance to a constituted government." The second definition is not what is meant by rebellion in the constitutional sense. The states attempted peaceful secession. Lincoln pushed them to fire the first shot.

[clarkiscool]

They did not need to fire the first shot though did they? Lincoln was merely trying to send supplies to the Anderson and his men which realistically did not have enough men to make and effective defense.

[iambile]

I'm not condoning the first shot but if you read about what occurred prior it's understandable. The south tried to leave peacefully and Lincoln refused to even listen.

[clarkiscool]

The south though is equally at fault though because they did fire the first shot.

[iambile]

There is no way to quantify fault but I wouldn't consider it equal. The south could have waited and more than likely the north would have attacked anyway. Lincoln was hellbent on keeping the Union together and had already been preparing. Regardless... the faults and failures of Lincoln and the north should not be disregarded due to the faults and failures of the Jefferson Davis and south.

[overmind25]

The fort was in South Carolina which seceded.

[iambile]

As for the DoI. It may not have the force of law but many of the men who supported "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." designed the second constitution. The south took the recommendation of their forefathers.

[clarkiscool]

The same circumstances were not the same between what the colonists faced and what the south faced. The southern states had representation in the senate and in the house. They even used slaves to help their population by making them 1/3 a person. The colonists also signed no documents binding them to the rule of the British. They went to the colonies for freedom. The south's secession can't be compared to the revolution by the colonists.

[iambile]

They didn't? All the colonies were chartered, most colonists gained land and travel by agreeing to just be there. As for signing no document, technically only a handful of individuals signed anything. The rest had little say. I signed no contract with my state/country of residence. Doesn't mean you are going to say it's OK for me not to follow their laws are you? Tyranny is tyranny, supposedly represented or not. The south didn't like how they were treated and decided to leave. Same difference.

[clarkiscool]

You were born in the state and their are documents proving it. You not following laws has nothing to do with the discussion. So what you are saying then is that i can secede my house from the US and make my own country because i don't like economy. The south did have representation in gov unlike the colonists and the north's treatment of the south was not tyrannical because the had the senate and then they had to cheat to get more people in the house of reps.

[iambile]

You should be able to associate with whoever you like peacefully and do what you wish with your property. Technically you do not own your land, the state does. What does where I was born have anything to do with the people forcing their will on me? How is it that representation makes it OK to use violence against those who didn't aggress against you first? The states obviously had the ability to secede both constitutionally and philosophically. Lincoln was morally and legally in the wrong.

[mustangkyle1]

Wow how Pathetic this is, and this is the 2nd time I've heard Obama be compared by two great people. Martin Luther Kind Jr and now Abraham Lincoln. This is just wonderful hes not even president and also done nothing. You know maybe we should call him god then we know hes the right guy for us.