Obama '08?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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



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

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

Rush makes me laugh.

You, not so much...

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?