And when I say “this guy,” — for the jokers amongst our commenters — I don’t mean the actor.

  1. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    YOU KNOW, that is really a sublime counterfactual question. I think I know about 2-3 things about Lincoln. Who knows if he is a man of this age? Just too easy to assume he is a man of all ages?

    I just heard recently Lincoln described as “the best writer” ever to occupy the Whitehouse. How relevant is that? Do I want any President that would get assassinated in office a few weeks in? I don’t think so.

    Do I want someone that would compromise basic values in favor of pragmatic realities on the ground? Ha, ha. Too easy to go with the gut.

    None of us know who Lincoln was–in his own time, much less our own.

    YOU KNOW, a good speech or a bad debate don’t tell us much about how EFFECTIVE a man will be president. Does a man shape history, or does history shape the man?

    But in a Vacuum, who wouldn’t vote for anyone thats on Mnt Rushmore? Silly not to.

  2. NewformatSux says:

    Voice not quite what I wanted, but this movie looks good. Putting up nonviolent resisters in a trailer for a movie about a guy who exemplified violence is confusing.

    You know those shows or movies about actors who immerse themselves in the role, Stanley Tucci on Monk, or a sober guy who gets a DUI just by portraying an alcoholic? This actor is that guy.

  3. stormtrooper 651 says:

    You mean the guy who started an unnecessary war that killed half a million of his own people and the after that wanted to send all the blacks back to africa or panamanian swamps?
    Makes Bashar al-Assad look all the more like a teddy bear.

    • dusanmal says:

      He lived in non-kitch age when principles meant something. Very hard to explain such thing to PC liberals. Half of the country thumbed nose at the Constitution interpreted by common sense and literally. Fight to preserve it for all was worth all the losses.
      As for another intentional Liberal mangling of the real history: black people who were here (obviously) not of their own choice were offered free will option to return to the continent of their ancestors. If they wanted. With some Government help as they didn’t come here with their own will and funds. Or to go somewhere else if they were worried for their freedom and lives in the country where those were on the line just short time before. Help to oppressed, not dictate. Again hard to be understood by Liberals who think in terms of Government mandating and forcing everything.

      • tcc3 says:

        Say liberals again. You forgot to mention the baby eating and the devil worshiping.

        Youre on the fast track to Alphie-ville.

        • What? The moth is always drawn to the flame? says:

          Agree with the fast track observation.

  4. Admfubar says:

    id rather have the vampire hunter version

  5. Glenn E. says:

    Ever notice how Spielberg likes to make movie about three things? Racial inequality, wars, or friendly alien lifeforms. And in some cases, he mixes them up a bit. So “Schindler’s List” was about both of the first two. “A.I.” was about the first and the third. And I’m still waiting for him to figure out how to do the second and third combo, as a movie. Maybe he already did it for Tv. But if Lincoln gets a visitation from space aliens, in this picture. We’ll know he finally exceeded in flipping out.

    • bodiddlie says:

      Well, he did War of the Worlds. Granted they weren’t “friendly” alien life forms, but it’s pretty close to the formula.

      • E-Tea says:

        In War of the Worlds, wasn’t the friendly alien life form the bacteria that killed the space invaders?

  6. Taxed Enough Already Dude says:

    It requires strength of character to fight for what is right, regardless the cost…that doesn’t exist in our society today.

    Democrats wanted their slaves, Republicans said that violated their God given humanity, and an incredibly costly war was fought over the issue.

    Little did Republicans know there would be a time when the Democrats would convince people to give up their freedom, for stuff….for welfare and healthcare…

    • msbpodcast says:

      to give up their freedom, for stuff….for welfare and healthcare…

      Oh Puhleaz… You obviously don’t understand what the purpose of politics are, who they’re supposed to be for and what they really cost. (Hint; They’re not there for Mittenz or O’Mama and the rest of the elected thieves to get richer and to screw us even further by hiding the money away in offshore accounts.)

      The parties are now indistinguishable and that is what is ailing this country.

      Pick your representatives at random from eligible citizens once every four years and you’ll have inexpensive peace and quiet and some real representation instead of self-selected millionaires wasting untold billions which could be spent on health care instead of this senseless election gerrymandering.

      And don’t worry about criminals getting in. We’ve already got two members of both parties, late of the Pennsylvania state legislature, sharing a cell.

    • Eli Whitney says:

      Sirrah, you know less than nothing. The war was not about slavery, just as the current wars in the middle east are not about freeing the arabs.

      And, by the way, *I* freed the slaves by making them unprofitable.

      • ± says:

        You’re correct that the civil war was only accidentally and incidentally about slavery. Not an issue the war would have been started over, that is for sure. But that is not what the sheeple have been taught in school. You won’t change Afie’s mind (he believes in an omnipotent-omnipresent-omniscient-invisible-friend-in-the-sky)

    • E-Tea says:


      The Civil war was NOT started, and for the most part not even fought over slavery. In fact, the majority of all people (all white people in power, that is) in all parties wanted to KEEP slavery, at least for the states that already had it.

      You might also like to note that Lincoln’s famous Emancipation Proclamation didn’t exactly free very many people when it was made either. Lincoln really only promised freedom to slaves in states that had already seceded from the Union. But freedom to slaves in northern states and other northern controlled areas was still allowed! In fact, it wasn’t until the 13th Amendment was ratified in December 1865 — AFTER the war — that all slavery in America was finally abolished. (

      So if you’re going to stand on some kind of moral stump and say that the Civil War was all about slavery you couldn’t be more wrong. Slavery was only a very minor issue that always seems to get blown way out of proportion by the revisionist historians — historians who are usually of liberal political persuasion (and often run our public schools).

    • What? The moth is always drawn to the flame? says:

      You have all the character of a smoked cigar.

      Your soap box is a story about yourself, and what you want. How quaint.

      People reject you because you are unable to share their world with yours.

      And you talk about convictions like someone should care what you hold in your cold dead heart.

  7. Robert Leather says:

    Lincoln the man, or Lincoln the sainted myth.

    One is complicated and seemingly contradictory while the other has been established as a parable for future generations to venerate.

  8. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    Just for grins:

    Derek says:
    10/4/2012 at 8:30 pm

    Ummmm… The Civil War was about the states separating over unjust representation. /// The secession declaration of South Carolina said it was about their freedom to own slaves.

    The Civil War was already underway before slavery was even a part of it. /// I can’t stretch any words or ideas to cover this whack a doo idea. Must be a mistype? Can you provide the context/facts that makes this notion relevant?

    What did the civil war do for black people? /// Freed them from slavery allowing them to fight for a living like the white trash around them.

    It lowered them from a working class /// working class? Ha, ha. No–it was slavery.

    to a sub-class with no money or rights. /// More exactly backward analysis. Did I miss something, or did you leave something out?

    Lincoln killed Americans to regain power and used slavery to justify it. /// Factually incorrect. After kindergarden, all students of history know Lincoln fought to PRESERVE THE UNION and as he stated, he would have kept slavery to do it.

    I don’t sense any humor or irony in your post here. Can you be so misinformed? And if so, to what purpose I wonder? Please tell us…. which third party candidate do you support and why?

    Failure of grammar school edumacation. Silly Hooman.

    • jim g says:

      Give this man a cigar! They teach a simplified dumbed down version of history in the schools today. Like the Kansas-Nebraska act never existed. I guess it became politically correct to say that it was about slavery instead of the truth: that it was about the rights of the states vs the rights of the federal government. And in the end, the states ( and the people) lost.

  9. honeyman says:

    I report with a deep sadness that I can no-longer see the art in movies such as this, only propaganda.

  10. jim g says:

    Well, he’d be pretty quiet, and won’t cause too much trouble since he’s been dead for 140 years.

    Another Lincoln might be a good choice since he was elecected and then we went right into a civil war. A division of the states. And at the end, the tyranny of King George in the previous war was replaced with the tyranny of the Federal Government.

    Might be another civil war coming. I always said that Obammy was likely the last president of a United States.

  11. Dallas says:

    George Clooney would be the best. If not him, either Bill Clinton or Hillary Clinton because you get both of them.

    Willard and Eddie Munster rank low on my list. Mostly because Willard is a fucking chameleon-snake.

    • What? The moth is always drawn to the flame? says:

      Aren’t we “due” for another?

  12. Egon Ruuda says:

    Hope they have included the phrase “if i could save the union without freeing a single slave i would do it”

  13. Jabez Wolffe says:

    The only thing the chair in the Oval Office needs in it is a sack of horseshit and an autographed picture of the Wizard of Oz.

    Big Biz runs the country, has for a long time, and will keep doing so until their greed and corruption finally crashes it for good. (Which shouldn’t be long now.)

  14. MikeN says:

    If the Civil War was about slavery then the people that seceded made the dumbest decision ever. 15 slave states is enough to block a Constitutional Amendment today.

    Only a small percentage of people owned slaves in the South, and they were usually far away from the center of government, though they did manage to maintain rules to keep slavery in place, such as illegal to teach a slave, punishment for assisting escaped slaves, etc.

    More likely secession was based on business interests as Lincoln was in favor of high tariffs on manufacturing, which would bring high tariffs on Southern farm exports. Paul Johnson wrote how only a very small number of people ever voted for secession among the Confederate states.

    It is well known that the Emancipation Proclamation was issued to keep the British and French from intervening on behalf of the South.

    • bobbo, we think with words, and flower with ideas says:

      Read the Secession Declaration of South Carolina.

      “These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.

      We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated,…..”

  15. fr0mundach33se says:

    Think Lincoln was a good guy do ya? Give “The Real Lincoln” by Thomas DiLorenzo a read, before you spend any more time with hero worship.

    • bobbo, we think with words, and flower with ideas says:

      What were 2-3 key Lincoln defects?

      • bobbo, we think with words, and flower with ideas says:

        Book review at Amazon is an interesting read. I don’t see reading fantasies with an agenda like this.

        “To accomplish his goals, Lincoln subverted the Constitution, trampled states’ rights, and launched a devastating Civil War,…” /// Yeah, except it was South Carolina that seceded and fired on Fort Sumter. When you get such a basic fact wrong, why read the rest when there are soooooo many good books I’ll never get to?

        Nice bit of counterfactual history: what would have happened if the South had not started the Civil War… just waited Lincoln out? Keeping the Union together was hard enough…

  16. Kent says:

    The movie is bullshit propaganda, nothing more.

  17. observer says:

    I see Gary Johnson got left out, again.

  18. deowll says:

    He isn’t running for office this year and in fact having been elected twice he is not now qualified to run. Please note that legally speaking I don’t think the law actually bars a dead mean from running for office if he can do the other things required.

    That being the case I’ll take a successful business person and governor who has a track record of working with all stake holders over an ideology socialist/Marxist who has a track record of my way or the high way and making horrendous business investments when we have a bad economy and a national debt rapidly soaring to places this nation can not sustain.

    • bobbo, we think with words, and flower with ideas says:

      Me too. Who might qualify?


Bad Behavior has blocked 13504 access attempts in the last 7 days.