disneytopdog
Active Member
WOW...now you can be an AA in the Hall of Presidents!!!!! Is Leo your VP? I have a daschund that would like to vie for that position
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
hall of presidents
- Thread starter chels26
- Start date
WOW...now you can be an AA in the Hall of Presidents!!!!! Is Leo your VP? I have a daschund that would like to vie for that position
WDWGuide
Active Member
Hanson was not the head of state, and his role wasn't in any way comparable to that of the current Presidency.
NOLADisneyFan
Member
I agree with the last few posts. Washington was the first president. We refer to the start of this republic with the ratification of the Constitution. Thus, Washington is numero uno.
There may have been other presidents (Continental Congress, Articles of Confederation, etc.), but they were not heads of this republic. The Articles of Confederation were abandoned, and a new government under the Constitution was formed. That is the government which operates today, and the heads of that government are memorialized by the Hall of Presidents.
There may have been other presidents (Continental Congress, Articles of Confederation, etc.), but they were not heads of this republic. The Articles of Confederation were abandoned, and a new government under the Constitution was formed. That is the government which operates today, and the heads of that government are memorialized by the Hall of Presidents.
disneytopdog
Active Member
Hence the year "1787" inscribed under the steeple. As Tramp pointed out in an earlier post. Thats when the line of Presidents started
Epcotian
Member
There's a reason Washington is considered the "father of our country" and not Hanson. Hanson was an obscure man who presided over a system that did not work. Washington was a hero in the eyes of the entire nation (or at least that segment of the nation that wasn't being enslaved). You can call yourself a republic, a united nation, signatorees to a new federal constitution. But you need something to emotionally attach the people to your new nation and constitution. George Washington was quite literally larger than life and was that "something." The people saw him as heroic and an artificial aura (popular mythology) was built up around him ("I can never tell a lie", etc). Washington represented something much larger than himself, as much in 1787 as today.
Hanson is trivia, because he's trivial. He's yet another of the millions of names that form the minutae of history. Those names are important in that they document and verify matters greater than themselves (much like the first chapter of Matthew). They are not important enough that they need be common knowledge to anyone but the specialist in early American history.
CBOMB
Active Member
Since no one else answered you, I'll try to. I don't know when the incident occured, but it was when AA's were new, and Walt Disney came up with a show presenting President Lincoln. Early on a malfunction occured, and Mr Lincoln slumped to his chair. A hydrolic line had ruptured, and red fluid leaked out onto Mr. Lincoln's shirt. Some people thought that Disney had intended to recreate the assasination of President Lincoln. A very embarrassing moment to say the least. Anyway the AA is set up now when a malfunction occurs it will still slump to it's chair, but it no longer contains red fluid. That is the way I remember the story to be. Anyone feel free to correct me if I got it wrong.
God Save The Queen!
All of this vile hatred for the President of the United States of America seems very disturbing to me.
Pumbas Nakasak
Heading for the great escape.
Animaniac93-98
Well-Known Member
*temporarily re-hijacks thread* I'm planning in the next couple of days to post a thread with a dtetailed (with pictures) idea for an MST3K attraction at WDW, if your intrested CThaddeus. And I too like Joel better.
We now return you to your thread already in progress.
Slowjack
Well-Known Member
Not trying to single out anyone in particular, but the whole "I don't like W so I don't go to the HoP" thing is a good example of what I think is wrong with political discussion in this country. It's such a my-tribe versus your-tribe attitude. There used to be a time when you respected the office of the President whether or not you had personal respect for the man in the office. Now anything someone doesn't like about a politician, that gets attributed to evil as opposed to a difference of opinion.
Just to be clear, this attitude isn't limited to Bush-bashers. I remember there were members of the U.S. Ryder Cup (golf) team who wanted to turn down an invitation to the White House because they didn't like then-President Clinton. That was intended, I guess, to disrespect Clinton, but in my opinion it disrespected the country.
At any given time close to half the country, at least, is going to have a problem with the current president. Heck, even now, as dismal as Bush's approval numbers are, the numbers for Congress are even lower. Politicians have been spewing vitriol at each other for so long that's all they have to offer. I agree with what some posters have said that the current president shouldn't speak--leaving that out gives the presentation more of a historic sweep. But I for one wouldn't let my personal feelings towards whoever is in office keep me from attending the show.
Okay, climbing down from the soapbox now. Sorry for the interruption. :zipit:
Just to be clear, this attitude isn't limited to Bush-bashers. I remember there were members of the U.S. Ryder Cup (golf) team who wanted to turn down an invitation to the White House because they didn't like then-President Clinton. That was intended, I guess, to disrespect Clinton, but in my opinion it disrespected the country.
At any given time close to half the country, at least, is going to have a problem with the current president. Heck, even now, as dismal as Bush's approval numbers are, the numbers for Congress are even lower. Politicians have been spewing vitriol at each other for so long that's all they have to offer. I agree with what some posters have said that the current president shouldn't speak--leaving that out gives the presentation more of a historic sweep. But I for one wouldn't let my personal feelings towards whoever is in office keep me from attending the show.
Okay, climbing down from the soapbox now. Sorry for the interruption. :zipit:
hrcollectibles
Active Member
And can we please stop arguing..
Tramp
New Member
:kiss: Lots of hugs comin' your way, darlin' ! :kiss:
unkadug
Follower of "Saget"The Cult
Yes you do. That's what a moderated forum is all about; moderators decide when forum guidelines have been violated, or if something is not appropriate. There are lots of unmoderated websites out there, but even the most "anything goes" sites have their own form of censorship if you look closely enough.
slappy magoo
Well-Known Member
Eh, I'm one of the bozos that tried (and failed) to make my point about HoP without being too partisan, so sorry for any inconvenience. Did try, though. I was probably out drinking the day God handed out tact.
Anyway, back on topic (seriously, watch and see), without any figures to back me up, I'd be willing to bet the popularity of HoP ebbs and flows depending on how close we are pre and post and election year. When the job changes hands, especially, attendance will tend to spike, if nor other reason than the diehard fans going back to see the show in its present incarnation one more time, and then going back to see how lifelike and realistic the new Auto Animatronic in Chief looks.
What I'd dearly love to see (and if it were ever technologically possible, it is now), is to see the Presidents do more interacting with each other. Let's face it, we'd all like to think that each Chief Executive handled the job with the best of intentions and to the best of his abilities. And despite how history judges them - saint or sinner, genius or seatfiller - they are still human like any of us. To see a handful of the Presidents argue/debate each other, based on their agendas, their accomplishments, the mores and standards at the time, as a means to inspire debate (instead of rancor) over where the nation should be heading, I think that could potentially be more inspiring than rote repeating of key moments in a few addresses, followed by a generic "wee can doo eet" speech by the current office-holder.
What would be neater still would be if, at all possible, they could have a few variations of the show, where different issues are discussed, different philosophies are explored, and a few different Presidents take center stage. Lincoln, FDR & Kennedy one show, Washington, Teddy R. and Reagan another show, and so on. I think the technology is there for the one Hall to have the possibilities for a few different shows (especially if only the most prominent Presidents take on expansive speaking roles). This way, people can go back to the show on different days or different times, and potentially get an entirely different show. Better still, it might inspire the audience to do more than walk out of the show with warm fuzzy pride about being an American, but think about how things could get better, and what they can do to make it happen.
Non-partisan enough for ya? :animwink:
GrumpyFan
Well-Known Member
:ROFLOL: No kidding...
Okay, so this thread has started me thinking about how the attraction could be improved without making it tacky.
Perhaps the following could be done for the pre-show, with interactive kiosks, or buzzers in the lobby. Maybe an interactive "did you know trivia" kind of game, where they would pose the question like "This President was responsible for _____", "This president was also a vice president for so-and-so". I know it's a little bit cheesy, and I don't mean it to be disrespectful to the office, but just something that would pull people into the attraction.