112
   

Where is the US economy headed?

 
 
okie
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2010 07:13 pm
@plainoldme,
plainoldme wrote:

Abraham and Mary were both political animals. They were drawn to each other because of their political interests. The nascent Republican party wanted them to move to the Pacific Northwest and for ABraham to run from there in order to extend the party's base. At that time, the Republican party was the liberal party. Susan B. Anthony famously voted the Republican ticket "straight."

Time now to address your interesting post. Maybe slightly more liberal in context with conservative associated with the status quo, vs Lincoln and the Republicans favoring change, but that does not indicate anything at all about Lincoln being a liberal in context with what liberal is defined as today, no way, pom. I have also read alot about Lincoln, including a book of his quotes. Their is no way the man could be equated to a liberal as currently defined. The man was pro-liberty, pro individual responsibility, pro-everything the Republicans stood for then and still stand for.

Quote:
While at least one writer credited Lincoln's impulse to free the slaves to Mary, in my readings on the couple and the time, I have found nothing to substantiate that claim. Rather I credit the pressure on Lincoln from the Abolitionists and from a nation made weary from years of war to act in that way. Just as Americans wearied of Viet Nam and largely turned against that war, so, too, Americans wearied of the Civil War. Although the South has continued to fight it.

I also remember proof reading a term paper my older son wrote while in high school which included an incident following an Indian uprising during the War. Lincoln could have, as the Army wished, simply hung all the captive Native Americans but instead ordered a contingent of lawyers to defend the men which resulted in something like less than four being hung.

Lincoln was a compassionate man, and a man that understood human nature and its imperfections. This trait comes out also in his efforts to try to make it easier on the South after the war, not to rub their noses in their defeat, to try to incorporate them and all of America in the healing that was so necessary.

Quote:
Now, Lincoln liked business. He thought business would be good for the nation, help to develop the raw lands of the west. In that, he seems like an early to mid-20th C Republican. However, in freeing the slaves and in ordering attorneys to defend the Native Americans he seems more like a liberal.

Yes, he loved business, because he understood it was freedom and liberty based, it was a God given right and responsibility to be self supporting, to be responsible for oneself and one's family, not that of government. This is total and absolute agreement and accord with today's Republican Party and conservative thought, and totally foreign to liberal and Democratic thought, which demonizes and blames business, capitalism, and the individual, and desires the government to usurp our rights, responsibilities, and liberties.

In regard to defending Native Americans, it also agrees with freeing the slaves, and nothing has changed to this day. The Democrats still want their slaves, jus vote for them and they will keep you on their plantation and provide for you. In fact, they think you are helpless without them, they have no confidence in your ability to work for yourself, in the ingenuity of you and America, as their confidence is in the almighty power of the State to do for you and provide for you, not much different than the thinking of Stalin and all the other leftists strewn in the path of history. That is why Obama admires Black Liberation Theology, Hugo Chavez, Castro, and like ilk.
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2010 07:50 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Your right, I did put in the wrong thread.
It was supposed to go in the Obama thread, because I consider that a thread about dems in general.

But that still doesnt excuse what this person said,does it.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2010 08:46 pm
@hawkeye10,
So? I don't even trust him to pay his taxes.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  2  
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2010 08:41 am
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:
I thought that it was only the repubs that were hateful (according to the left).

And of course you can provide documentation for this?
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2010 08:51 am
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:



I thought that it was only the repubs that were hateful (according to the left).


The left is full of angry, dangerous racists. The left is far more hateful than the republicans.
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2010 09:21 am
@H2O MAN,
H2O MAN wrote:

The left is full of angry, dangerous racists. The left is far more hateful than the republicans.

Jeremiah Wright was and is a prime example. If anyone has any doubts about this, listen to his recorded racially charged rants against rich whites and Jews, and his praises of leftist tyrants like Castro and Chavez, even terrorists for making the "chickens come home to roost" of all things. And Wright was a man admired and followed by the current president of the United States. I keep repeating this information, because the Left is either too blind or too slow to catch onto what goes through the minds and controls the minds of ultra leftists and flaming liberals. A prediction, the too blind and too slow to catch on will thumbs down this post or ridicule it because they are too coward to face the truth and stand up for what is honorable by opposing what is wrong.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2010 09:26 am
@okie,
Who you calling a coward?

I don't think there's any objective proof that the left is more hateful then the right. The right-wing sure loves to shout hateful things and slurs at their rallies - and online.

Cycloptichorn
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2010 09:28 am
@okie,
okie wrote:

H2O MAN wrote:

The left is full of angry, dangerous racists. The left is far more hateful than the republicans.

Jeremiah Wright was and is a prime example. If anyone has any doubts about this, listen to his recorded racially charged rants against rich whites and Jews, and his praises of leftist tyrants like Castro and Chavez, even terrorists for making the "chickens come home to roost" of all things. And Wright was a man admired and followed by the current president of the United States. I keep repeating this information, because the Left is either too blind or too slow to catch onto what goes through the minds and controls the minds of ultra leftists and flaming liberals. A prediction, the too blind and too slow to catch on will thumbs down this post or ridicule it because they are too coward to face the truth and stand up for what is honorable by opposing what is wrong.


You are 100% correct!
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2010 09:30 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Who you calling a coward?
Cycloptichorn

I will call you one if you fail to condemn Wright and his followers like Obama as being unfit for leadership in this country, especially as president, which should by any sensible measure relegate them to unfitness by their politically charged hatreds. Are you going to step to the plate, or continue to dodge, weave, and hide from reality?
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2010 09:42 am
@okie,
okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Who you calling a coward?
Cycloptichorn

I will call you one if you fail to condemn Wright and his followers like Obama as being unfit for leadership in this country, especially as president, which should by any sensible measure relegate them to unfitness by their politically charged hatreds. Are you going to step to the plate, or continue to dodge, weave, and hide from reality?


I do not condemn Wright or Obama - for they are no different then any other people. If I were to compile a hit list of your dumbest and most inflammatory comments over your time at A2K, Okie, I could make you look like the world's biggest asshole and an idiot - and you know I could. So I don't buy the hit job on Wright. He's a person, with high points and low points, just like anyone else.

Nobody gives a **** if you call me a 'coward' for not agreeing with you. That's not what cowardice means, Okie. Perhaps you would be correct if I didn't have the balls to step up and tell you that you were wrong. But that's not the case.

Yaknow what? Obama was right about people like you: bitter. You simply cannot adjust to the change in management and have instead gone off the rails somewhat.

I think people with YOUR opinions are the ones unfit for leadership, Okie. And it would appear the country agrees with me. You may note that Conservatives - what you would call 'true' conservatives - are in short supply in Washington these days. Why do you think that is?

Cycloptichorn
H2O MAN
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2010 09:50 am
@okie,
The left and their media will never condemn Wright , his followers or Obama.
The left and their media will continue to to dodge, weave, and hide from reality.
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2010 04:58 pm
Quote:
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average of the world's greatest civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, and from dependency back to bondage.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  0  
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2010 06:02 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Who you calling a coward?
Cycloptichorn

I will call you one if you fail to condemn Wright and his followers like Obama as being unfit for leadership in this country, especially as president, which should by any sensible measure relegate them to unfitness by their politically charged hatreds. Are you going to step to the plate, or continue to dodge, weave, and hide from reality?


I do not condemn Wright or Obama - for they are no different then any other people. If I were to compile a hit list of your dumbest and most inflammatory comments over your time at A2K, Okie, I could make you look like the world's biggest asshole and an idiot - and you know I could. So I don't buy the hit job on Wright. He's a person, with high points and low points, just like anyone else.
Pathetic post, cyclops. Anyone that fails to condemn hatred spewed by the likes of Wright are in fact cowardly, or so steeped in defending your liberalism or leftism that you have lost all of your honor.

Quote:
Nobody gives a **** if you call me a 'coward' for not agreeing with you. That's not what cowardice means, Okie. Perhaps you would be correct if I didn't have the balls to step up and tell you that you were wrong. But that's not the case.

Alot of people do give __________, at least the ones that have honor, and a measure of decency.

Quote:
Yaknow what? Obama was right about people like you: bitter. You simply cannot adjust to the change in management and have instead gone off the rails somewhat.

You know what, Wright is the bitter one, and so is anyone that listens and endorses his hatred. Apparently that may actually include you more specifically than I had even realized, and I also have concluded that Obama at his root is also a bitter person at his foundation, which makes for a very dangerous personality to be in power.

Quote:
I think people with YOUR opinions are the ones unfit for leadership, Okie. And it would appear the country agrees with me. You may note that Conservatives - what you would call 'true' conservatives - are in short supply in Washington these days. Why do you think that is?

Cycloptichorn

Why do I think true conservatives are in short supply? Because the pendulum swings, and right now it has swung toward the liberal side, for a number or reasons, which I would suggest are generational, educational, cultural, and spurred by the media. Does that mean it is healthy? Absolutely not. Cultures and societies can suffer very unhealthy trends, and that is why very unhealthy situations occur, such as occurred in Germany about 70 to 80 years ago, and why it occurs in many places around the world from time to time. Do I think the pendulum can swing to a more healthy state of affairs here? Absolutely, and that is one reason why I participate on this forum and why I vote, I want to try to convince others of the correct path to responsible living and responsible government, and try to swing that pendulum to a favorable direction.

And one of the keys to going in the right direction is to condemn evil, and for good men to stand up and be counted and not to do nothing.
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2010 06:04 pm
@okie,
You wrote this:
The man was pro-liberty, pro individual responsibility, pro-everything the Republicans stood for then and still stand for.

To which I can only say: White man speak with forked tongue.

The liberals of the 19th C were the Abolitionists and the Suffragettes. The interesting thing about the third cause of the era, the war against alcohol, is that it drew both liberals and conservatives. As many slave-holders as Suffragettes supported abstinence.

By extension, both the Abolitionists and Suffragettes may be interpreted . . . let me repeat, MAY BE INTERPRETED . . . to have been pro-liberty. However, the actual word liberty was used largely as the title of William Garrison's paper and seldom appeared.

You are doing a great deal of violence to the concept.

For another thing, this business of the AMerican right using the concept of personal responsibility is fairly new. I only began hearing it in the 90s. To the left, this statement is heresy. There is nothing inherently responsible in the American right. I have written that time and time again here.

In fact, until the Republican top levels started using it, the little guys did not.

So, even you can not claim that the guys in the south with rebel flags on their cars would have freed the slaves or given women the vote.

The sons of those who wore the grey in the Civil War re-enslaved Blacks, mostly male blacks through a trumped up arrests and unending prison sentences.

I haven't read the rest of your post but I have to ask just what this sentence of yours means:

Maybe slightly more liberal in context with conservative associated with the status quo, vs Lincoln and the Republicans favoring change, but that does not indicate anything at all about Lincoln being a liberal in context with what liberal is defined as today, no way, pom.

If you think I am so unsophisticated as to assume that conservatism is associated with the status quo . . .I am speechless.

Now, I will read the remainder of your post.
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2010 06:08 pm
@okie,
You wrote this: Lincoln was a compassionate man, and a man that understood human nature and its imperfections. This trait comes out also in his efforts to try to make it easier on the South after the war, not to rub their noses in their defeat, to try to incorporate them and all of America in the healing that was so necessary.

Do you see the error there . . ."his efforts to try to make it easier on the South after the war . . ."
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2010 06:24 pm
@okie,
Finally, your third paragraph is completely incorrect. Business has nothing to do with freedom and liberty. You ignore the Robber Barons . . . the sweatshops. . . child labor . . . the struggle for the 40 hour week . . .the need for OSHA and workman's comp.

I know exactly why Lincoln favored business and it had nothing to do with liberty.

I have no idea how old you are or if you have a college education but when I was in college in the 60s, it was the blue collar kids who were liberals. They were also the kids who worked their way through school. There were more hippies running small businesses . . . ranging from clothing stores to restaurants to print shops to bookstores. . . than there were fraternity boys attempting anything.

Frankly, you would not have the energy to keep up with me or my liberal women friends in all we do.

Let's keep it to women. It was the hippie women, the earth mothers, who baked bread and made homemade soup while the grown up versions of sorority sisters ordered out from businesses like The Silver Palate.

You continual harping on the stereotype of lefties not working is just wrong. It is a stereotype.

There are more people of the conservative stripe on welfare . . . the sort that usually put the stars and bars on their cars.

As for the Suffragettes and the Abolitionists supporting the Republicans, consider that the Republicans were formed after the Whigs imploded. Some of the early Republicans had been WHigs while others were more or less undecided. The liberal activists of the day . . . the women and the slavery opposers . . . joined the ranks of the Republicans largely because the party was still unformed. It was a strategy on their part.

Lincoln was a political animal. Mary may have had a greater ardor for politics. You know, when you read about First Ladies, you find a lot more Rosalyn Carters and Mary Lincolns than Barbra Bushes and Pat Nixons.

Finally, your fourth paragraph is a screed. Tell me how liberals are responsible for the egregious actions of the Texas State Board of Education which has been trying to rewrite history for years. Liberalism is the philosophy . . .please note that I did not write party . . . of freedom. The history of the Republican party after Teddy Roosevelt has been a history of social destruction and nay-saying. It continues to be so today with the likes of sarah palin and willard romney leading the way. . . in the footsteps of leo strauss.
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2010 06:27 pm
@okie,
Actually, I think of Obama as a Moderate Republican . . . far and away too conservative for my taste. The only liberty is on the left. The only ethics are the ethics of the left.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2010 06:29 pm
@plainoldme,
plainoldme wrote:

You wrote this: Lincoln was a compassionate man, and a man that understood human nature and its imperfections. This trait comes out also in his efforts to try to make it easier on the South after the war, not to rub their noses in their defeat, to try to incorporate them and all of America in the healing that was so necessary.

Do you see the error there . . ."his efforts to try to make it easier on the South after the war . . ."

From Lincoln's second inaugural address in 1865, pom, I think it is evident that Lincoln is endorsing malice toward none, on both sides of the conflict, and to bind up the nation's wounds, not just on the Union side, also the soldiers, the widows, and the orphans, on both sides. This does not take away his commitment to the principles he believed, in freedom and justice for all citizens regardless of color, because he risked his entire being to stand up for the principles he believed, but nevertheless the man understood that both the north and the south suffered in unprecedented ways, pitting brother against brother. This is just one little indicator of what I asserted, but I think there is much evidence that could be cited. I believe I am on the correct side of historical evidence when I asserted what I did.

"With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan -- to achieve and cherish a lasting peace among ourselves and with the world. to do all which may achieve and cherish a just, and a lasting peace, among ourselves, and with the world. all nations."
okie
 
  0  
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2010 06:37 pm
@plainoldme,
plainoldme wrote:

I have no idea how old you are or if you have a college education but when I was in college in the 60s, it was the blue collar kids who were liberals. They were also the kids who worked their way through school. There were more hippies running small businesses . . . ranging from clothing stores to restaurants to print shops to bookstores. . . than there were fraternity boys attempting anything.

Frankly, you would not have the energy to keep up with me or my liberal women friends in all we do.

You are wrong on almost everything, and the above is a good example. I was in college in the 60's, in fact graduated in late 60's. I was a farm kid that earned every dollar to pay my own way through college, so I certainly was no white collar kid, my parents were hard working farmers, with jobs in town as well, and no white collar. And hippies were smoking pot, not running businesses, at least not where I lived. I did not belong to a fraternity, those were for spoiled city slickers with money, partiers and pot smokers, you know, the ones that belonged to SDS and were lost souls, liberals. You talk about your energy, I have no clue what you are talking about in terms of me not keeping up with you. I don't know what all you have done, but I have never been on welfare, never taken a dime of unemployment, and I have always had a job or run my own business, plus have been a tax paying law abiding citizen all of my life. I am also a military vet, Vietnam vet, with an honorable discharge, and I make no apologies for this country as Obama likes to do all the time, I love this country, pom.
okie
 
  0  
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2010 07:16 pm
@okie,
To add to my above post, my experience has been that white collar kids, kids that got things on a silver platter, they were more likely to be liberals. Many of those kids had guilt complexes. That is why so many moviestars are liberals, they have a guilt complex for never having to really earn what they are making, or because they grew up in an environment of being coddled and given everything to them. Also why they are so unhappy at their core, and often end up in drug abuse, broken homes and marriages, and really dysfunctional lives. Or it could be the ones that were taught envy and that they were poor or down and out because they were taught or indoctrinated that they were dealt a short deal, they might also become liberal or at least a Democrat voter.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

The States Need Help - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fiscal Cliff - Question by JPB
Let GM go Bankrupt - Discussion by Woiyo9
Sovereign debt - Question by JohnJD
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 09/30/2020 at 01:16:59