Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The other good laugh I had was reading the post about Abe Lincoln and the "liberal democrats" of his time. Oh yeah... now there's an apple-to-apple comparison. The U.S. Civil War... The Iraqi Invasion. So many similarities that history will no doubt blur the line someday.
Please cite. I'm curious as to how a civil conflict over the economic and moral issue of slavery can be compared to a preemptive, brutally aggressive, imperialistic strike and subsequent war on a sovereign nation based on (that's a good question, huh?) weapons of mass destruction? Or the removal of a brutal dictator? Or retribution for the attacks of September 11th? Or.... flavorful excuse of the month? None of which 'reasons' have held water despite reiteration ad naseum. Conversely, slavery really WAS the issue!
George II would not.
Nor would the left's hero, the smartest man in the world, the first black female president, Slick Willie.
Nor would Poppy Bush.
Reagan would.
Jimmuh would not.
Ford probably wouldn't know who they were.
Nixon might.
LBJ wouldn't.
Jack probably would.
Ike would.
Please cite. I'm curious as to how a civil conflict over the economic and moral issue of slavery can be compared to a preemptive, brutally aggressive, imperialistic strike and subsequent war on a sovereign nation based on (that's a good question, huh?) weapons of mass destruction? Or the removal of a brutal dictator? Or retribution for the attacks of September 11th? Or.... flavorful excuse of the month? None of which 'reasons' have held water despite reiteration ad naseum. Conversely, slavery really WAS the issue!
Thanks.
If it were up to Liberal "Peace Democrats of 1864" the North would have given up. The Liberal "Peace Democrats" wanted to let the South shave their "rights" and throw in the white towel.
The 1864 Liberal "Peace Democrats" wanted to let slavery be legal, because they didn't think the war was "worth it", etc...
Again, I disagree with Bush on many things, but the Iraq War was the right thing to do and I believe every past President would have done the same thing. We are at a crucial time in our history, also. Islamic terrorists will be emboldened if we fail in Iraq.
President Lincoln had the majority of American against him. The majority of Americans wanted Lincoln to give up and just let the South secede and allow slavery.
The Liberal "Peace Democrats" were so crazy in their disagreement with the Civil War that Lincoln had to arrest more than 13,000 Americans and suspend Habeus Corpus!!!
Far-Left Liberals think Bush is a freaking "Fascist"?? What would they have thought of Abraham Lincoln?
Liberal far Left Democrats would have been having a crap fit in 1864.
By 1864, the Country had grown weary of the long and bloody Civil War.
Hundreds of thousands of the countries' best and bravest young men had fallen on the fields of Bull Run, Antietam, Shiloh, and countless more. Many began to think that the war was not worth it, and the price of freedom too great.
The Republican Presidential Candidate Abraham Lincoln thought no price was too great for the abolition of slavery and the creation of a society in which a man was not judged by the color of his skin. Unfortunately, after four long years of war, Lincoln's support was dropping fast, and people were looking for a way out of the war.
Quote:
Quote:
The Democratic Platform:
The 1864 Democratic Platform began with the words:
Resolved, that in the future, as in the past, we will adhere with unswerving fidelity to the Union under the Constitution, as the only solid foundation of our strength, security, and happiness as a people, and as a framework of government equally conducive to the welfare and prosperity of all the States, both Northern and Southern.
Nast wrapped these words around an image of their true meaning, showing men and dogs hunting down runaway slaves. The image to your left presents this portion of the illustration above.
Quote:
Quote:
The Chicago Platform further reads:
that the aim and object of the Democratic party are to preserve the federal Union and the rights of the States unimpaired
Nast's Illustration then points out that the "Rights of the States Unimpaired" was a nice way of saying, "States may Continue to practice Slavery, with all its associated brutality, unencumbered by the Federal Government".
The illustration shows a slave auction. At the slave auction, a black family is being sold.
The Mother is being sold separately from the child and Husband.
Clearly, the family was being split apart and sold separately. In the second image, a black man is shown tied to a tree and being brutally beaten by two men with whips. Other slaves are forced to watch the brutality, I suppose as a warning to them. All this was accepted practice in the United States of the 1850's and 1860's. The Democratic Platform of 1864 was strongly supporting continuing this practice as "Business as Usual".
Liberal Democrats wanted to give up on the Civil War, shrug their shoulders and continue to allow slavery, and Liberal Democrats want to give up today shrug their shoulders and let Iraq plunge into worse chaos.
Their are innocent Iraqi children and the majority of Iraqis are peace loving people who just want a better future.
A normal Military enlistment is 3 to 4 years so EVERY American Soldiers serving in Iraq has had to RE-ENLIST to stay in the U.S. Military s
o they are serving in Iraq by their own CHOICE. I thought Liberals liked "CHOICE"???
The U.S. Military has had RECORD RE-ENLISTMENTS at a time of war. American Soldiers are RE-ENLISTING to stay in Iraq because they understand the stakes. They look into the eyes of Iraqi children and innocent Iraqis and are commited to the mission.
Sunni Iraqis are asking the U.S. Military to stay:
On the 4th of July almost 600 American Soldiers RE-ENLISTED to continue serving in Iraq. Why? Because they believe in the mission and understand the stakes.
I don't like Bush, but I believe in establishing a Secular Democracy in Iraq is the right thing to do and our only chance to defeat Radical Islam by establishing Democracy and hope in the Middle East. It is the right thing to do.
Last edited by Cornerguy1; 07-14-2007 at 11:39 PM..
Reason: please do not use copyrighted material in posts
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
