Posted on Aug 15, 2015
Lois Lerner Claimed Lincoln Was Worst President. Why She’s Wrong. Do you Agree?
10.1K
69
37
9
9
0
Lois Lerner Claimed Lincoln Was Worst President. Why She’s Wrong. Do you agree?
I found this article to be of interest because it talks about one of our Presidents that had one tough road ahead of him when becoming the President of the United States during a very tremulous time. It also displays the very problem we have in this country with politics and their involvement and corruption. The Lois Lerner issue is a whole other story for a different day.
How do rate President Lincoln based on the facts presented?
http://dailysignal.com/?p=196928
I found this article to be of interest because it talks about one of our Presidents that had one tough road ahead of him when becoming the President of the United States during a very tremulous time. It also displays the very problem we have in this country with politics and their involvement and corruption. The Lois Lerner issue is a whole other story for a different day.
How do rate President Lincoln based on the facts presented?
http://dailysignal.com/?p=196928
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 19
She's a bitch. She's trying to throw attention off of her and to what she said about Lincoln. She has a terrible track record and shouldn't be taken seriously by anything she says. I don't need to defend Lincoln. He's one of the greatest people that ever lived. He was such a great President he was assassinated, by a coward. If you get what I mean.
(1)
(0)
COL Mikel J. Burroughs
I've already considered Lincoln to be in the same category as the other Presidents mentioned in the article, and the facts in the article back up those feelings.
On a personal note, I think Lerner is just so bat shit crazy that she's against all Republicans, even Lincoln. Even though his brand of Republicanism is far removed from the modern era Republican.
I wonder if this story were to get more exposure, would her own Democrat party disown her and label her a racist? The evidence presented in this article certainly seems to support my theory.
I've already considered Lincoln to be in the same category as the other Presidents mentioned in the article, and the facts in the article back up those feelings.
On a personal note, I think Lerner is just so bat shit crazy that she's against all Republicans, even Lincoln. Even though his brand of Republicanism is far removed from the modern era Republican.
I wonder if this story were to get more exposure, would her own Democrat party disown her and label her a racist? The evidence presented in this article certainly seems to support my theory.
(1)
(0)
COL Mikel J. Burroughs .. yeah, I take everything Lois Lerner has to say to heart bc the woman just exudes credibility
(1)
(0)
Sir, this article is one that truly challenges critical thinking among other logic disciplines.
First, we must look at what she actually said, and THEN we must look at the article.
“Look my view is that Lincoln was our worst president not our best. He should’[v]e let the south go. We really do seem to have 2 totally different mindsets,”
Without the full context of the email (chain), which I was not able to find, we are making a huge argument based on three sentences, without having her rebuttal.
I have seen Joe Rogan tear a NASA expert apart on the Moon Landing (Conspiracy) because the expert was unprepared. That's on something we KNOW happened, and WATCHED on live Television. Of course we can tear Ms. Lerner apart with facts, because she never actually made an argument (See Straw Man Logical Fallacy), or had a chance to defend against it.
All that said, the article highlights A LOT of great things President Lincoln did. He did a lot of great things. But there were also things which "taken out of context" or even within context were far from perfect. So let's provide a few examples:
http://listverse.com/2013/12/05/10-reasons-lincoln-was-secretly-a-terrible-president/
Using the the above, Lincoln among the great things he did, also did somethings which were contrary to that. He did HORRIBLE things as well. Let's try to avoid looking at him through rose-tinted history glasses and remember he was a man, that we have turned into an ideal.
That said, though I may disagree with Ms. Lerner's SUBJECTIVE three (3) sentence assessment of one of our most recognizable Presidents, like all things the truth is probably in the middle. Her first sentence:
"Look my view is that Lincoln was our worst president not our best." is an opinion statement and cannot be viewed as anything other than that in Subjective terms, regardless of how many facts we rally around.
Her second sentence "He should’[v]e let the south go." is an assessment based on 150 years of historical data which Lincoln wouldn't have access to, however it is "generally accepted" that the current Nation is better than a divided nation. That's a mental exercise which we will never have an answer for.
Her final statement "We really do seem to have 2 totally different mindsets" honestly is accurate. It's only when combined with the first that one could become irate. Because we are challenging a core belief. If a person were to say:
"should’[v]e let the south go. We really do seem to have 2 totally different mindsets,” Would we have the same emotional outcry?
All that said, though I agree with many of the articles points, however it's a manipulative attempt to enhance emotion on an unrelated issue. When attempting objectively measure anything, using these emotional tools is counter to the philosophy of what we are going. It may be accomplishing its goal, but its doing it in the wrong way.
First, we must look at what she actually said, and THEN we must look at the article.
“Look my view is that Lincoln was our worst president not our best. He should’[v]e let the south go. We really do seem to have 2 totally different mindsets,”
Without the full context of the email (chain), which I was not able to find, we are making a huge argument based on three sentences, without having her rebuttal.
I have seen Joe Rogan tear a NASA expert apart on the Moon Landing (Conspiracy) because the expert was unprepared. That's on something we KNOW happened, and WATCHED on live Television. Of course we can tear Ms. Lerner apart with facts, because she never actually made an argument (See Straw Man Logical Fallacy), or had a chance to defend against it.
All that said, the article highlights A LOT of great things President Lincoln did. He did a lot of great things. But there were also things which "taken out of context" or even within context were far from perfect. So let's provide a few examples:
http://listverse.com/2013/12/05/10-reasons-lincoln-was-secretly-a-terrible-president/
Using the the above, Lincoln among the great things he did, also did somethings which were contrary to that. He did HORRIBLE things as well. Let's try to avoid looking at him through rose-tinted history glasses and remember he was a man, that we have turned into an ideal.
That said, though I may disagree with Ms. Lerner's SUBJECTIVE three (3) sentence assessment of one of our most recognizable Presidents, like all things the truth is probably in the middle. Her first sentence:
"Look my view is that Lincoln was our worst president not our best." is an opinion statement and cannot be viewed as anything other than that in Subjective terms, regardless of how many facts we rally around.
Her second sentence "He should’[v]e let the south go." is an assessment based on 150 years of historical data which Lincoln wouldn't have access to, however it is "generally accepted" that the current Nation is better than a divided nation. That's a mental exercise which we will never have an answer for.
Her final statement "We really do seem to have 2 totally different mindsets" honestly is accurate. It's only when combined with the first that one could become irate. Because we are challenging a core belief. If a person were to say:
"should’[v]e let the south go. We really do seem to have 2 totally different mindsets,” Would we have the same emotional outcry?
All that said, though I agree with many of the articles points, however it's a manipulative attempt to enhance emotion on an unrelated issue. When attempting objectively measure anything, using these emotional tools is counter to the philosophy of what we are going. It may be accomplishing its goal, but its doing it in the wrong way.
10 Reasons Lincoln Was Secretly A Terrible President - Listverse
We’ll go out on a limb here and guess you’ve probably heard of Abraham Lincoln. Hero, martyr, vampire hunter---Honest Abe is the president all other presid
(1)
(0)
COL Mikel J. Burroughs
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS I was really trying to get everyone to notice here comment about the South’s succession and the two different mindsets. If indeed she feels that way we really have a problem with these types of government employees representing the best interests of our country. She could have said that Jimmy Carter was the best President in the world, but that comment she made: "He should’[v]e let the south go. We really do seem to have 2 totally different mindsets,” That is what really gets my blood running extremely warm!
(1)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
COL Mikel J. Burroughs I think dividing the Nation would have been the death of the Nation.
To draw a modern parallel, look at the State of California. It is essentially divided in a "similar" manner philosophically as a result of the Urban/Rural financial issues the state has. Now imagine if we were to try and split California down the middle. Everything south of LA becomes SoCal, and everything north becomes NoCal. Could the State(s) survive?
We would essentially be separating it financially, and by natural resources. It could be argued "divided we fall" would be the endstate. Taken to the US as a whole, the same logic applies, especially in 1860. Neither "party" was truly capable of life without the other. It would have resulted in an unsustainable situation, and the eventual reabsorption by one side or the other.
The mindset issue is something that is going to happen with any landmass this large (4th largest nation in the world) combined with the fact that we have the greatest physical diversity on the land itself. Whether that mindset is enough to justify killing the Nation, I would have to disagree.
To draw a modern parallel, look at the State of California. It is essentially divided in a "similar" manner philosophically as a result of the Urban/Rural financial issues the state has. Now imagine if we were to try and split California down the middle. Everything south of LA becomes SoCal, and everything north becomes NoCal. Could the State(s) survive?
We would essentially be separating it financially, and by natural resources. It could be argued "divided we fall" would be the endstate. Taken to the US as a whole, the same logic applies, especially in 1860. Neither "party" was truly capable of life without the other. It would have resulted in an unsustainable situation, and the eventual reabsorption by one side or the other.
The mindset issue is something that is going to happen with any landmass this large (4th largest nation in the world) combined with the fact that we have the greatest physical diversity on the land itself. Whether that mindset is enough to justify killing the Nation, I would have to disagree.
(1)
(0)
MCPO Roger Collins
John Wilkes Booth had a similar opinion, and unfortunately did something about it.
(0)
(0)
PO2 Robert Cuminale
I disagree. Each country would have had different assets and strengths. Had there been a peaceable separation each would have been trading partners just as we are with Canada.
(0)
(0)
I guess Lerner is forgetting that it's a black president that's keeping her out of jail ; she can thank president Lincoln for that
(1)
(0)
Her comments go to the mindset of the democrat leadership. She wouldn't have been hired for the job if she didn't think like they do. They do not represent the majority and those who follow them really need to start questioning the rational of their party leaders.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next

Office of the President (POTUS)
Leader
Politics
IRS
Congress
