Lincoln vs. Darwin

[underpants]

Because we just couldn't possibly handle both now could we?



In the July 7-14 double issue of Newsweek (on newsstands Monday, June 30): 'The (mostly) Big Thoughts Edition.' In this second annual double issue on global cultural literacy, Newsweek poses questions in essays on everything from whether presidents should pander to get votes to whether having children makes you happier. There are factoids, lists and quizzes so you can test your global literacy IQ. *This issue will remain on newsstands for two weeks.
(PRNewsFoto/NEWSWEEK)

[salvorhardin]

1. Lincoln and Darwin were born in the same year (1809)

They should have used this image of Charles Darwin if they wanted to portray an accurate matchup:


Darwin is 51 in that photo. Lincoln was 52 when he took the office of the Presidency.

I'm not sure who would come out on top in a fight between Darwin and Lincoln. Both weren't exactly known for sedentary lifestyles. Lincoln's wiry but Darwin looks tougher. Lincoln has Mary Todd to back him up, Darwin controls an army of wild monkeys.. Yeah, that's it. Lincoln and Todd easily beats Darwin and wild monkey army.

[underpants]

2. Is it just me or does he look like Elton John?

:shrug:

[salvorhardin]

3. Hah! Now that you mention it...

Yeah, he does.

[alphafemale]

4. And those pants look really itchy. shudder nt

[salvorhardin]

5. And doncha know there's enough starch in that shirt collar to withstand a bullet! n/t

[underpants]

6. Yes, but consider the alternative

[Deja Q]

9. This is the media. Since WHEN are they supposed to adhere to accuracy?

:spray:

[Deja Q]

7. Darwin was an ironic old goat.

Lincoln was far more pertinent when it comes to America's values. Still is.

[cobalt1999]

8. Darwin and it's not even close

A fundamental change in our view of how we got here vs. a U.S. president. It's insulting to Darwin that someone would even make the comparison.