Does Anyone Believe This Statement?

Does anyone believe THIS statement...

"Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so, whenever he may choose to say he deesm it necessary for such purpose - and you allow him to make war at pleasure. Study to see if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect, after you have given him so much as you propose. If, today, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada, to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, "I see no probability of the British invading us" but he will say to you "be silent; I see it, if you don't."
Abe Lincoln

OT to blatham.......

Everytime I see you post a quote by Abe, I wonder if you've read this book:

Was Lincoln Gay?
By RICHARD BROOKHISER

Published: January 9, 2005

HIS book is already getting noticed. In ''The Intimate World of Abraham Lincoln,'' C. A. Tripp contends that Lincoln had erotic attractions and attachments to men throughout his life, from his youth to his presidency. He further argues that Lincoln's relationships with women were either invented by biographers (his love of Ann Rutledge) or were desolate botches (his courtship of Mary Owens and his marriage to Mary Todd). Tripp is not the first to argue that Lincoln was homosexual -- earlier writers have parsed his friendship with Joshua Speed, the young store owner he lived with after moving to Springfield, Ill. -- but he assembles a mass of evidence and tries to make sense of it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/09/books/review/09BROOKHE.html

Not making a political statement here - just wondering if you've read it yet. Maybe I'll post it over in "Books" and start a discussion.

By all means. With Lincoln, as with all Americans, sexual proclivity is the watermark of everything of real importance.

So if Lincoln is somehow diminished because he may or may not have put his lips to a penis...it must surely follow that bush is diminished because he puckers up and puts his lips to the asses of big business and his financial supporters on a regular basis.....following the logic of just wonders and her ilk....

Was just wondering if you've read it. Geesh.

My ilk? Did you read the last sentence?

As a right thinking American who falls on the side of morality and supports a return of morals and decency to American society...shouldn't you be in church right now instead of posting innuendo?

Sorry, no I haven't. Biographical studies aren't really my cup of tea, and that's applies probably most of all to private relationships of the subject.

LOL

This is research for the bible school class she's teaching later this morning.

Thanks, blatham.

BPB...How do you know I'm not in church? <wink>

I like being termed "right-thinking", though Thanks!

no problem just wonders.and I admire your ability to take a compliment graciously and recognize my sincerity....

I saw BPB's post above (and this was the first post in this thread I'd seen), and was shocked. I had to page back to see what compliment he'd given, and to see with my own eyes his sincerity. I confess that I was, if but for a moment, taken in and under the impression that BPB had actually given a sincere compliment to a conservative poster.

I now see my shock and surprise was justified. Oh, well, at least all is right in the world. Hell has apparently not, in fact, frozen.

boy nothing ges by you even for a second huh Tico?

I'm in awe.

Lincoln as homosexual....

This nationalist iconography stuff is so terribly interesting. If some incontrovertable documentary evidence were found (letters, say) that Lincoln was homosexual, there'd be no small turmoil in many American psyches. The Jefferson DNA example is another such case.

Here in Canada, there really isn't a comparable case I can think of. We don't have a similar library of foundation stories or of iconographic personalities who have come to represent the identity of the nation, as seems to be the case for so many citizens in the US.

Anyone care to look at this difference, at the pluses and negatives of it?

I knew I was taking a chance by asking that question. Blatham quoted Abe several times in as many days, so I was curious and decided to risk it.......knowing I'd most likely be judged for posing the question itself. Still, I was curious (and rather optimistic that I'd get just a "yes" or "no" -- silly me).

They say there are no bad questions, but I'm learning you can tell much about a person by the way he answers, just as I'm sure Tripp himself had more than a few motivations for writing that book.

About twenty posts or so since we have been on topic.

At the Senate Judiciary Committee's hearing on his nomination last week, Alberto Gonzalez refused to reject the legal advice he gave Bush in 2002: that it's permissable to order torture, and that torturers should be protected from legal recrimination.

According to the Washington Post, the "2002 ruling made under his direction (said) that the infliction of pain short of serious physical injury, organ failure or death did not constitute torture."

As long as you don't cripple them or kill them, you're good to go.

Instead of repudiating that advice, Gonzalez said, "I don't have a disagreement with the conclusions then reached."

OK then ... anything else?

Gonzales repeated his criticisms of the Geneva Conventions, saying they "limit our ability to solicit information from detainees," which is, according to the Post, "an interpretation at odds with that of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the military's legal corps, the Red Cross, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and decades of U.S. experience in war."

So, nothing to worry about there either.

In fact, even current AG John "I Can See Into Your Bedroom Window From Here" Ashcroft has said that he doesn't believe in torture because it produces no information of value.

So, if I am understanding this all correctly, the Bush administration -- and Democrats in the Senate -- intend that our next attorney general to be a guy who spent several hours last week doing his best to defend the practice of torturing prisoners (or 'detainees', or 'enemy combatants' or whatever TF they wish to call them).

Where are we going, and what am I doing in this handbasket?

Is it any wonder why Americans don't trust leftists with national security?

just wonders...based on cyber acquaintance with you.....it is easy to figure that innuendo concerning blow jobs, homosexuality, abortions, what you deem unpatriotic attitudes are a tool in your arsenal. If Abe Lincoln makes a statement that does not support your boy bush...or is in some way perceived by you to be a slam on him...then you make a post casting aspersions on his sexuality. This is textbook 101 for a certain group of A2Kers that you are a part of. I don't know who it is you think you're fooling with that backpeddling nonsense, but I assure you it's no one here. :wink:

And as a patriot....I defend your right to post as you please. God Bless America.

That's quite a narrow-minded leap even for you, BPB. I'm happy to note you've calmed down, though, and no longer want to do yourself in

I never said I wanted to do myself in...speaking of narrow minded leaps...the word condescending comes to mind as well.....so I guess we're all right in character.....