georgeob1
 
  2  
Tue 23 Dec, 2008 12:21 pm
@nimh,
nimh wrote:

Yeoman's work by Old Europe, which reminds me why I dont bother anymore. Even the best of conservatives respond to his question-by-question fact-checking with broad, ideologized abstractions and bromides. When I read Old Europe's efforts, I feel like I should still make them too, but I just dont see the point anymore. Round and round we go forever on the same questions.


Evidently you prefer Old Europe's "ideologized abstractions and bromides" to those you happen not to agree with. Frankly, I don't see much difference in the quality of argumentation on either side. Perhaps the only consistently distinguishing feature is the odd complacency and certainty of folks like you and Old Europe that you are surely correct and those who disagree are as surely ignorant, badly motivated and unreasoning.

Both sides in these endless disputes practice equivalent selectivity in what points they address and those they ignore. Both apply standards to those they oppose that they or the alternatives they support fail to meet themselves. It is my view that both, to a very large degree, reflect the different situations from which their conflicting viewpoints have emerged. It is merely unfortunate that the stridency of the participants has precluded enough self-reflection on either side for an examination and discussion of these truly interesting and potentially illuminating matters.

A roughly equivalent debate among mutually uncomprehending populations and governments continues in the modern world. Perhaps that fact should remind us that history is not yet finished.

However, I do understand and sympathize with your weariness over the endless disputation. I am equally weary of it - indeed this has been my only effort in this area for several months.
revel
 
  1  
Tue 23 Dec, 2008 12:22 pm
@okie,
Perhaps Okie, Obama merely honors Lincoln for his role in the civil war in freeing the slaves and because he comes from Illinoise.
FreeDuck
 
  2  
Tue 23 Dec, 2008 12:38 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:

I guess he can use whatever Bible, but I am simply registering what I think this shows in terms of judging his character and personality.


I think it is patently absurd to extrapolate judgments of his character from these symbolic actions -- especially such negative judgments from such obviously harmless actions.

Quote:
Count on it, if this was Bush doing that, there would be accusations of hypocrisy from the left, but at least Bush is a Republican.


I searched for threads of outrage over Bush using George Washington's bible to take his first oath and didn't find any. Was that presumptuous of him? Did he dare to think he was as great as Washington just because he shared his name? Or is it more likely that new presidents hope for greatness and may choose symbols of their heroes during the inauguration.

Quote:
It is total symbolism over substance. Therefore I brought this up, it is all about Obama, not the country. We have a very self absorbed man as president now.

It's an inauguration -- a symbolic ceremony of the changing of governments. I think you must spend a lot of time looking for things to get worked up about. I have a mother who does the same thing with Sarah Palin. It must be very reassuring to have an object of hate.
okie
 
  1  
Tue 23 Dec, 2008 01:22 pm
@FreeDuck,
FreeDuck wrote:
Quote:
It is total symbolism over substance. Therefore I brought this up, it is all about Obama, not the country. We have a very self absorbed man as president now.

It's an inauguration -- a symbolic ceremony of the changing of governments. I think you must spend a lot of time looking for things to get worked up about. I have a mother who does the same thing with Sarah Palin. It must be very reassuring to have an object of hate.

There is that word, "hate," again. Why is it when anyone disagrees with a liberal, you accuse us of hating you? Grow up. We disagree with you. It isn't hatred.
FreeDuck
 
  3  
Tue 23 Dec, 2008 01:34 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:

There is that word, "hate," again. Why is it when anyone disagrees with a liberal, you accuse us of hating you? Grow up. We disagree with you. It isn't hatred.


You're not disagreeing. You are harping on harmless choices that have nothing to do with principles or policies. You are actively looking for any little thing you can use to justify your existing opinion of Obama, and taking every opportunity to infer the most nefarious motives to anything he does. That's hate.
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Tue 23 Dec, 2008 01:59 pm
@FreeDuck,
FreeDuck wrote:

A very bad sign that Obama is taking his oath on Lincoln's bible? Heaven forbid that he presume to take inspiration from our 16th president.


Of course, Freeduck! All those emails he received during the last two years promised that if Obama was elected, he'd be sworn in using the Koran! I don't blame Okie for being so upset at such a huge disappointing turn of events.

The poor guy is going to have a rough four years. Obama is going to have a tough time living up to all those dire predictions in those emails and will surely disappoint him more than once.
mysteryman
 
  1  
Tue 23 Dec, 2008 02:03 pm
@Butrflynet,
Obama is also going to have a tough time honoring and living up to all of the campaign promises he made.

But as for his choice to be sworn in on the same Bbile Lincoln used, who cares.
Thats a non-issue, at least to me.
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Tue 23 Dec, 2008 02:10 pm
@mysteryman,
The big secret, mysteryman, is that most of us don't expect him to live up to all of them.
mysteryman
 
  1  
Tue 23 Dec, 2008 02:11 pm
@revel,
If you actually study Lincoln, you will see that he really didnt care about freeing slaves.
While he was opposed to slavery, he didnt fight the civil war to free the slaves, but to keep the union together.
He was willing to allow the south to keep its slaves if that would have preserved the union.

Also, the Emancipation Proclamation didnt free a single slave.
Since the Confederacy was (at the time) an independent country, recognized as such by other nations, Lincoln didnt have the power or the authority to free any slaves.
All it was was a political move, designed to make himself look good and appease the anti-slave people in congress.

So lets be honest, he really didnt free any slaves, he just took the credit for it.
georgeob1
 
  4  
Tue 23 Dec, 2008 02:49 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

If you actually study Lincoln, you will see that he really didnt care about freeing slaves.
While he was opposed to slavery, he didnt fight the civil war to free the slaves, but to keep the union together.
He was willing to allow the south to keep its slaves if that would have preserved the union.

Also, the Emancipation Proclamation didnt free a single slave.
Since the Confederacy was (at the time) an independent country, recognized as such by other nations, Lincoln didnt have the power or the authority to free any slaves.
All it was was a political move, designed to make himself look good and appease the anti-slave people in congress.

So lets be honest, he really didnt free any slaves, he just took the credit for it.


That is neither fair nor accurate.

Lincoln was very consistently clear that he considered slavery an absolute evil. Moreover, he very clearly regarded the implicit constitutional recognition of it as, at best, a necessary compromise of the proscription in the Declaration of Independence that, "all men are created equal" (ironically penned by the slave owning Thomas Jefferson), that he believed was even more fundamental to our liberty.

At the same time he was also willing to compromise on the question of the continuance of slavery in states where it already existed, to the extent that was necessary to preserve the union. However he steadfastly opposed any extension of slavery to other areas and territories.

Lincoln never recognized the independence of the Confederate states and never acknowledged any limitations on his powers with respect to them. Indeed the Emancipation proclamation was expressedly based on his continuing authority over them and he even styled the emancipation as a necessary punitive action to limit the power of states then involved in rebellion. (The Emancipation did not free slaves in Union states such as Maryland. However, it ended it morally and in the public mind there and everywhere in the country. Had he done it earlier it would likely not have had that effect.)

In all of this Lincoln revealed himself to be a very principalled but wisely pragmatic leader who struggled to achieve net good in a situation beset with conflicting goals and numerous contradictions. That he did so with restraint and without strident fanaticism, often in the face of considerable abuse from his critics on both sides, is what makes him such a singular character.

You have mischaracterized him and his actions rather badly.
mysteryman
 
  1  
Tue 23 Dec, 2008 03:02 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
That is neither fair nor accurate.

Lincoln was very consistently clear that he considered slavery an absolute evil. Moreover, he very clearly regarded the implicit constitutional recognition of it as, at best, a necessary compromise of the proscription in the Declaration of Independence that, "all men are created equal" (ironically penned by the slave owning Thomas Jefferson), that he believed was even more fundamental to our liberty.

I believe thats what I said.
He personally opposed slavery


At the same time he was also willing to compromise on the question of the continuance of slavery in states where it already existed, to the extent that was necessary to preserve the union. However he steadfastly opposed any extension of slavery to other areas and territories.

Thats what I said.
He was willing to allow the south to keep their slaves to preserve the union.


Lincoln never recognized the independence of the Confederate states and never acknowledged any limitations on his powers with respect to them. Indeed the Emancipation proclamation was expressedly based on his continuing authority over them and he even styled the emancipation as a necessary punitive action to limit the power of states then involved in rebellion. (The Emancipation did not free slaves in Union states such as Maryland. However, it ended it morally and in the public mind there and everywhere in the country. Had he done it earlier it would likely not have had that effect.)

But there were diplomatic relations between the Confederacy and other countries.
Are you saying that if the WH doesnt recognize a country then that country doesnt exist?
And I will say it again, not one single slave was freed by the Emancipation Proclamation.
It was a very astute move politically, but it actually accomplished nothing.



In all of this Lincoln revealed himself to be a very principalled but wisely pragmatic leader who struggled to achieve net good in a situation beset with conflicting goals and numerous contradictions. That he did so with restraint and without strident fanaticism, often in the face of considerable abuse from his critics on both sides, is what makes him such a singular character.


And I dont deny any of this.
He was a very astute man, who had the right job at the right time.
He was the right person for the job, there can be no denying that.
But, lets not pretend that he was the second coming or that he wasnt a politician.
He did what he had to do, but there were political reasons for everything he did also.
I think we are arguing over nothing.
We are seeing the same thing, but just from a different angle.


You have mischaracterized him and his actions rather badly.
I dont believe I have.
I just looked thru all of the hype and hyperbole about him and broke it down to its basics.

BTW, can you find any type of list of ANY slaves that were set free by southern slaveowners because of the Emancipation Proclamation?
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  0  
Tue 23 Dec, 2008 07:19 pm
@Butrflynet,
Butrflynet wrote:

The big secret, mysteryman, is that most of us don't expect him to live up to all of them.

Its not a secret, butrflynet. In fact, Rush pointed that out today, and I already knew that as well.

And mm, with all due respect, Lincoln did want to free the slaves, and save the union, both.
Rockhead
 
  2  
Tue 23 Dec, 2008 07:21 pm
@okie,
we, of course being yourself and Rush...?

Rolling Eyes

(says I now, but twas wee when it started...)
okie
 
  0  
Tue 23 Dec, 2008 07:23 pm
@Rockhead,
Rockhead wrote:

we, of course being yourself and Rush...?

Rolling Eyes

(says I now, but twas wee when it started...)

I can read the news each morning and almost predict what Rush is going to say. He almost always agrees with conservative principles, not always.
0 Replies
 
Rockhead
 
  2  
Tue 23 Dec, 2008 07:38 pm
Rush makes me laugh.

You, not so much...
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Tue 23 Dec, 2008 07:41 pm
@okie,
I make a point of not listening to the wind bag so you'll have to clue me in on what Reverend Rush had to say to his flock of listeners.

By the way, since we're taking inventory on what will or not be accomplished based on the list of campaign promises, how did George W. do in that regard? Have you taken his inventory yet?

nimh
 
  2  
Tue 23 Dec, 2008 08:59 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:

Evidently you prefer Old Europe's "ideologized abstractions and bromides" to those you happen not to agree with.

Incorrect, actually. From where I'm standing it's, say, Blatham, who offers the ideologized abstractions and bromides I agree with and thus find gratifying to read; as such he is your worthy counterpart. Old Europe gets a lot more specific and concrete in his questioning and fact-checks, and I value him greatly for it.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Tue 23 Dec, 2008 11:10 pm
@Rockhead,
Rockhead wrote:

Rush makes me laugh.

You, not so much...

That made me laugh.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  0  
Tue 23 Dec, 2008 11:37 pm
@Butrflynet,
Butrflynet wrote:

I make a point of not listening to the wind bag so you'll have to clue me in on what Reverend Rush had to say to his flock of listeners.

By the way, since we're taking inventory on what will or not be accomplished based on the list of campaign promises, how did George W. do in that regard? Have you taken his inventory yet?


Rush is a bit of a windbag, he admits it not in those words, but he does admit it, and he is right more than half the time, perhaps 80 to 90% of the time, better than most news outlets. Today, I didn't catch all of Rush, but the part I heard he talked about the Lincoln bible thing, agreeing with my take on it earlier, and he also talked about the auto industry, which I agree with for the most part, but not completely, his take on it. Speaking of talk show people, I have run onto one that strikes me as very good lately, that being Lars Larsen. He isn't on that many stations, but very articulate, not sarcastic like Rush, just matter of fact, and pretty sound conservative. This evening, I heard him interview Mitt Romney, and oh, we missed a huge opportunity to truly have a smart guy as president, compared to what we have.

In regard to inventorying Bush, I have done it all along, he protected the country, he was committed to his decisions, he had good Supreme Court nominees, but failed with domestic spending, the prescription drug program should have never happened, immigration policy pretty much flopped although not totally, etc. etc. But he as a president to respect, he and Laura have class, a breath of fresh air. Bush is a decent man that aged terribly while president, but he took the job very seriously, which is also a breath of fresh air. I agreed with Bush part of the time, and disagreed with him part of the time, but he is a man I respect. Far from perfect, just a man, as any of our presidents are. I think history will treat Bush far better than the lefties are treating him now.
Rockhead
 
  1  
Tue 23 Dec, 2008 11:43 pm
@okie,
Okie, in the Christmas spirit, I'd like to send you a new tinfoil hat.

Which institution do you reside in, I got the Oklahoma Mental Health System database pulled up...
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 1126
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.18 seconds on 03/16/2025 at 07:56:24