Write Review
2,076,613 Total Reviews 3,521 New Reviews
7,457 Users Online

Politics and Religion

Re:That's the difference between the left and the right....
+Alias 3559 reads
posted

ed2000 seems to care...(eom)

ed20007430 reads

Is some of the criticism deserved? Maybe. He did reach pretty far, although I prefer visionary speeches instead of laundry lists for inaugural addresses. The laundry list will come later this month in the State of the Union Speech.

While his detractors view his promotion of global freedom and liberty as arrogant and imperialistic, I see a reasoned, long term plan that is one of few that could succeed. He wasn't suggesting imminent invasion of Iran or anywhere else. It was a very long term vision that he admittedly pointed out that he, himself would probably never live to see.

Many of his critics, especially those in the press are, in my opinon, over the top. Has the press ever gotten it so wrong before, about a forceful opinionated Presidential speech, during a time of war?

Here's an example, quoting from Carl Sandburg's book: Abraham Lincoln, The Prairie Years and The War Years, he reminds us of what the press said about Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. I won't post the speech, as most of you can probably recite it, given it's pedestal standing today.

The Harrisburg Patriot and Union wrote: "We pass over the silly remarks of the President; for the credit of the nation we are willing that the veil of oblivion shall be dropped over them and that they shall no more be repeated or thought of."

The Chicago Times: "The cheeks of every American must tingle with shame as he reads the silly, flat, and dishwatery utterance."

The London Times: "The ceremony was rendered ludicrous by some of the sallies of that poor President Lincoln... Anything more dull and commonplace it would not be easy to produce."

The Springfield Republican was surprised at how well Lincoln did, though, noting: "We had grown so accustomed to homely and imperfect phrase in his productions that we had come to think it was the law of his utterance."

Gosh, did Lincoln invent the use of Bushisms?

ReplyQuoteReport
LeMerovigian4308 reads

He'd be voting Democrat.

ReplyQuoteReport
KCMOSHYGUY3738 reads

This very topic was brought up after the election, discussing how the South voted Democratic for over a century because of Lincoln (Lincoln being a Republican).  I commented that the GOP of the Civil War days bears no resemblance to today's GOP.  See link to that post.

Good to know we're both on the same wavelength, LeMerovigian. :-)

KCSHYGUY

Related Link: http://theeroticreview.com/msgBoard/viewmsg.asp?MessageID=14255&boardID=39&page=

ReplyQuoteReport
Number 62483 reads

ReplyQuoteReport
+Alias4047 reads

The press was wrong about Lincoln, but...Bush is no Lincoln.

ReplyQuoteReport
KCMOSHYGUY4381 reads

ReplyQuoteReport
Number 64463 reads

ReplyQuoteReport
KCMOSHYGUY4278 reads

"Hi, I'm Mister ED!!!"

Remember that "A horse is a horse (is a horse, of course!!!)"; in Dumbya's case, though, it's "A horse's ass is a horse's ass (is a horse's ass at last!!!)".

ReplyQuoteReport
hypocrite addict4480 reads

Mr. Ed snorted too? LOL :o)

ReplyQuoteReport
stamina4hours3508 reads

Lincoln mended. Bush destroys.

ReplyQuoteReport
MissDemeanor4121 reads

The venal hubris of the right wing when trying to compare Bush to Lincoln is only exceeded by their ignorance.

ReplyQuoteReport
ed20004190 reads

Nine responses and only ONE addresses the topic.

And all it says is the Press was wrong in 1865, but it's correct today (now there is some reasoned thought processes going on).

The other eight simply changed the subject so that the Bush bashing can continue. One is even a veiled attack on ME (eh Mr. ED?) !!

I never once compared Bush to Lincoln except for the Bushism remark.

*sigh*

ReplyQuoteReport
+Alias4096 reads

Your inference is the press is wrong about GWB, just as the were about Lincoln.  Your elevating GWB's status by such a comparison.  I haven't made any denigrating remarks in my reply and have given an objective opinion, neither liberal or conservative.

ReplyQuoteReport
DoctorGonzo4655 reads

ReplyQuoteReport
ed20004276 reads

Quite the contrary. I stated that in fact YOU were the only one that actually stayed on topic. Now, your response was merely, "I'm right... Your wrong", but that's another debate.

Then you choose to lump yourself in with the one's that decided to change the topic merely to get in digs....to lump yourself in with the on'e that I WAS criticizing, just so you could "join the fight".

I wasn't elevating anybody. I even criticized Bush. No one here can seam to stop hating Bush long enough to even figure out what all this means.

ReplyQuoteReport
snafu9294010 reads

seen any media tidbits from those times and I think I'll try to look some more up from past decades.

ReplyQuoteReport
+Alias4075 reads

Who but ed2000 has?  LOL :o)

ReplyQuoteReport
ed20003983 reads

Carl Sandburg for one.
You might try looking him up to see who HE is. :-)

ReplyQuoteReport
Snowman393851 reads

the left NEEDS that international approval to affirm itself. The RIGHT does what he thinks is best for the US!!

So guess what, we on the Right could really give a shit what they say ;-)

BTW, read your history and what they said about Lincoln's Gettysburg address...

ReplyQuoteReport
+Alias3560 reads

ed2000 seems to care...(eom)

ReplyQuoteReport
ed20005186 reads

I seem to care what you think?
Interesting. I do care what those with differing opinions think, but mainly to the degree that it makes me rethink and reshape my own views. That is quite different than caring about one's approval. That, I do not need.

But I do find it interesting (but not unexpected) that only one person (YOU) actually had anything to say about the topic. Which is, the fact that many if not most of the press (and the world for that matter), excoriated Lincoln for taking a long term POSITIVE view of what seemed to his detractors as only a heinous, sinister, and dreadful episode in history. They saw absolutely nothing redeeming about the War. I don't know, but I bet a few of these intelecutal leaders even sighed a little relief when Lincoln was killed.

I was NOT comparing Bush to Lincoln. I WAS comparing the Press of then to the Press of today. History proved them wrong then and only time can truely judge the press of today. There will be more elections and in the longer term it will be the collective Will of the U.S. Citizenry that ultimately decides our course in this struggle.

It may turn out that Bush's reaction to terroism will result in the down fall of the U.S. It might also mark the beginning of a fresh positive future for the entire world. I don't know and none of you do either.

Just as most of you took my words and changed them into something that you felt comfortable debating (and denigrating), Bush's detractors did the same with his inaugural speech (trying to read between the lines).

As an experiment, if you can, imagine his words came from someone else, someone that you respect. Try, if you can, to judge his words, not the man. Don't let your hatred or disrepect for the man make you deaf to what is said. After you hear the words, debate the words and ideas, not the person delivering them

ReplyQuoteReport
+Alias3503 reads

Actually the comment that you care was a compliment.  I didn't mean that you neccessarily cared about what I think.  I'm not that full of myself.  Whether in agreement or disagreement, an open mind considers all points of view.  I'll leave the rest unsaid.

ReplyQuoteReport
MissDemeanor4077 reads

Your original post had a numner of fallacious assumptions and posits.

1. You tried to compare the Gettysburg Address to an Inauguration Speech. They are totally differnt TYPES of speeches.

2. You claimed MANY of the crtical press opinions of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address were over the top, whereas in reality some where, but not as many as you want to believe.

3. The War Between the States was an internecine struggle of huge proportions that ultimately resulted in a nation that was reunited. The Bush War on Iraq is a war of imperialistic aggression that was perpetrated on false premises and is not an internal one. Lincoln united a nation. Bush has divided it. The polarity of such a situation makes comparisons between the press of today and the press of the 1860s, invalid.

Analysis: Though it will be agreed that the press can and does get many opinions wrong in regards to future impacts of speeches, it also gets it right.

Opinion: The pathetic attempts by the conservative media, the Bush thralls/sympathizers and collaborators to try and compare the Bush War on Iraq to WW2, and now the Civil War press commentary on Lincoln have gone beyond the pale into vile, vicious venality. The transparent Machiavellian Mayberrys of the current West Wing Bush Regime have dark hearts, and even darker souls.

They do not act out of a vision of improving the nation and world, but out of heavenly hubris and godly greed.




ReplyQuoteReport
ed20004683 reads

In reply...

     "1. You tried to compare the Gettysburg Address to an Inauguration Speech. They are totally differnt TYPES of speeches."

A speech is a speech is a speech. The trigger or geographic location can be irrelevant. They were both visionary speeches given during a time of war while our country (and the world) was greatly divided over the war.

     "2. You claimed MANY of the crtical press opinions of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address were over the top, whereas in reality some where, but not as many as you want to believe."

I am simply trusting Carl Sandburg. I'd have to do more research to quatify the data. Where is the data to back up your statement? You are presumptuous in saying that I WANT to believe anything.

    "3. The War Between the States was an internecine struggle of huge proportions....."

Ditto for the war on terror.

    ".....that ultimately resulted in a nation that was reunited.

How long did THAT take? One hundred Plus years? Some of the racist baiters will say that it hasn't happened yet. Only time will tell for our present situation.

    "The Bush War on Iraq is a war of imperialistic aggression that was perpetrated on false premises and is not an internal one. Lincoln united a nation."

Imperialistic? Where are the spoils?

    "Bush has divided it."

I am sure that many many people said the same of Lincoln.

    "The polarity of such a situation makes comparisons between the press of today and the press of the 1860s, invalid."

Huh?

    "Analysis: Though it will be agreed that the press can and does get many opinions wrong in regards to future impacts of speeches, it also gets it right."

Reasoning.....Well, they could be right so therefore I am wrong.

    "Opinion: .....have gone beyond the pale into vile, vicious venality. The transparent Machiavellian Mayberrys of the current West Wing Bush Regime have dark hearts, and even darker souls.
They do not act out of a vision of improving the nation and world, but out of heavenly hubris and godly greed."

Well at least you prefaced your personal attacks as opinion. You guys always seem to end up here, in the end, calling names. What God given powers allow YOU to see into someone's soul? I make judgements based on words and deeds. You seem to make them based on some sort of etherial vibrations.


-- Modified on 1/25/2005 9:42:07 PM

ReplyQuoteReport
Post Reply Back To Forum
Register Now!