Jay Bookman

By ByteMe

December 23, 2008 11:49 AM | Link to this

Who you callin’ petty, Bookman?

Oh, right, The Corporal who commented on this very same topic in a very petty way in the thread right below this one.

By getalife

December 23, 2008 11:53 AM | Link to this

Finally, a good story.

Not reading many good stories lately.

By FrankLeeDarling

December 23, 2008 11:57 AM | Link to this

I don’t are if he swears in on the satanic bible,the sooner he gets his hand on the wheel the less likely we are to drive over the cliff bush is heading full speed for.

By Mrs. Godzilla

December 23, 2008 12:01 PM | Link to this

I suspect we’ll see corporals well worn Lincoln quote again.

Lincoln did free the slaves, but he was still a man of his time and something of a racist. While he hated slavery, he did not view the slaves as equals.

Here’s a piece from the Black Agenda Report….

It’s kind of ironic….Lincoln didn’t really believe in racial equality yet freed the slaves….Rick Warren doesn’t believe in sexual orientation equality will he free the gays?

By DB, Gwinnettian

December 23, 2008 12:02 PM | Link to this

I would’ve preferred a Jefferson Bible, but this one will do nicely.

In case you missed it: The results are in, and we now have the official Most Inane Punditry of the 2008 presidential campaign.

Attagirl, Cokie!

By AJC/DNC Management

December 23, 2008 12:13 PM | Link to this

How about it, the “worst economy since the Great Depression” and Wonder Boy is lounging on the beaches of Oahu and “toning down” his Marvelousness by digging up the Republican Freer of the Slaves and parading his corpse around like some cheap promotional gimmick.

ew

By Mrs. Godzilla

December 23, 2008 12:16 PM | Link to this

Here’s a neat factoid…..

Chester Arthur and Teddy Roosevelt did not use a Bible when being sworn in.

By The Corporal

December 23, 2008 12:17 PM | Link to this

A Couple of Points

1) First, there are many better examples he could use. Where’s is Frederick Douglass’s Bible ??

2) Second, what Lincoln said about blacks makes him a racist by every definition of the term.

Can you imagine anyone else getting by with this (note: these words are NOT enscribed on the Lincoln Memorial but were used by Lincoln when he was trying to get elected).

I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races; that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people ; and I will say, in addition to this, that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which, I believe, will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and polit- ical equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together, there must be the position of superior and inferior; and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.

3) And ….. just a few minutes after he was sworn in using that very Bible:

“3/4/61 (Inaugural address): I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.

4) Lincoln passed the Emancipation Proclamtion because the Union at that time was on the verge of losing the war. He intended to cause a slave rebellion as had happened in Haiti. To their credit, they did not do so. He would have kept every slave in bondage if he meant saving the Union.

My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause.

Call me what you like Jay. I thought you stayed away from that type of journalism.

Obama can find a far better role model than a petty Lincoln.

By AJC/DNC Management

December 23, 2008 12:20 PM | Link to this

And of course they got the Big One on the beach with some eats.

ew

It’s the “Great Depression” party time!

By DB, Gwinnettian

December 23, 2008 12:20 PM | Link to this

Shorter Corporal: “Lincoln kilt mah Granpappy!”

By The Corporal

December 23, 2008 12:21 PM | Link to this

Mrs. G.

Lincold did not free the slaves. He would have put them back in bondage under any State that re-entered the Union.

The Union victory in the War Between the States did not free the slaves.

The 13th Amendment freed the slaves.

By Taxpayer

December 23, 2008 12:25 PM | Link to this

If it were me, I’d hop up on the statue of Lincoln at the Memorial and have a postcard picture made of it with captions such as “Wish You Were Here!”, “What’s it like to be President, Abe?”, “BFFs”, etc. I’d send the first one to Cokie….

By AJC/DNC Management

December 23, 2008 12:28 PM | Link to this

Speaking of parading corpses around-

Russia flexes its arms with new strength- Nation underscores its new global reach on several fronts, confirming a missile deal with Iran, commissioning new nuclear weapons, hardening its support of breakaway regions in the Caucasus, blah, blah, blah.-Urinal/Jihad

Any idiot knows the oil bust has been murderous on the Kremlin, well except for the idiots at the Urinal, I guess.

Everybody else also knows that they are rampaging around our backyard with their skeleton fleet because they no longer have to worry about McInsane, now it’s just them and Beach Boy.

Got bomb shelter?

By Mrs. Godzilla

December 23, 2008 12:29 PM | Link to this

So let’s recap….

Lincoln was a racist. Talked out of both sides of his mouth. Wanted to preemptively start a rebellion.

Not a very flattering picture.

What was his party affiliation again?

By DB, Gwinnettian

December 23, 2008 12:30 PM | Link to this

“will he free the gays?”

Silly. He’ll pray the gay away!

By Mr Snarky

December 23, 2008 12:31 PM | Link to this

Corporal, Lincoln was a man of his times. If his rhetoric was more anti or pro slavery, he would not have been elected. While his main goal was to maintain the Union, he also was not going to let slavery expand into new states. The only way the South would not have seceded was if he allowed slavery to expand. Therefore, despite his “save the union at all costs rhetoric”, this was not really the case. Lincoln presented emancipation as a pragmatic decision, but most likely this was not really the case. He just had to wait until popular opinion would support it.

By AJC/DNC Management

December 23, 2008 12:36 PM | Link to this

Burglaries, robberies, killings drop in DeKalb in November-Urinal/DNC

Maybe because they was busy voting several times a day for Oblahmasan?

By getalife

December 23, 2008 12:37 PM | Link to this

More good news:

Stampede for ‘Bush Shoe’ Creates 100 New Iraqi Jobs.

By Taxpayer

December 23, 2008 12:43 PM | Link to this

Abe also wrote:

I am not a Know-Nothing. That is certain. How could I be? How can any one who abhors the oppression of negroes, be in favor of degrading classes of white people? Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that “all men are created equal.” We now practically read it “all men are created equal, except negroes.” When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read “all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and catholics.” When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty — to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be take pure, and without the base alloy of hypocracy [sic].

By AJC/DNC Management

December 23, 2008 12:44 PM | Link to this

Ladies and Gentlemen, please pardon Corporal, for he knows not of what he speaks, he was in the bad bush of Nam and apparently took a cannonball off the top of his head.

Show some damn respect!

Um, Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves and no one can dispute that.

Same as Bush freed the Iraqis from tyranny.

By AmVet

December 23, 2008 12:48 PM | Link to this

Mrs. G,

And think about it, he was the last decent president that sh!tbag party had.

And given the realities of a post-Bushco screw job, it is likely it will be a LONG time before we find out had bad the next RepubliCon president can be…

By The Corporal

December 23, 2008 12:57 PM | Link to this

To Mrs. G.

Nice try … and Thurmond, Wallace and Maddox to name a few ?

What goes around comes around.

By DB, Gwinnettian

December 23, 2008 12:58 PM | Link to this

Amvet - And think about it, he was the last decent president that sh!tbag party had.

I think Teddy R. and Ike certainly qualified as “decent,” at least competency-wise. I tend to include W’s dad in that group too, depending how forgiving I’m feeling.

By Mrs. Godzilla

December 23, 2008 12:59 PM | Link to this

President Thurman?

President Maddox?

President Wallace?

Not so nice try.

By The Corporal

December 23, 2008 1:08 PM | Link to this

To Taxpayer and AJC/DNC

A couple of points:

1) Yes, Lincoln was a man of his times … a racist. So why put him on a pedestal. I never said he didn’t want to get rid of slavery - only that he would have kept it to save the Union at any price.

2) He got us in a terrible war that need not have been. He started it because he and his Rumsfield type advisors thought it would be a knockover. Had it ended at the First Battle of Bull Run, slavery would have still existed for many years.

3) Had events been allowed to run their course, I believe some states may have left (and then come back), and slavery would have soon ended (it had only ended in the British Commonwealth about 30 years before) without all of the acrimony that exists to this day because of Reconstruction.

4) You can ignore the truth of history if you want but then we never learn from it.

By AmVet

December 23, 2008 1:11 PM | Link to this

DB,

I considered TR, but he had to leave them and join the Bull Moose party though to get a progressive agenda accomplished.

Ike?

Mixed bag. Good man, great American. So-so prez. Oversaw the start of the Jesus freak movement in the GOP. But he was very smart and no chickenhawk, the antithesis of frauds of today.

41?

Another BIG oil guy and VERY shady. Not terrible by his son’s abysmal standards, but IMHO not worth a damn really.

As for Lincoln himself, at least he kicked some traitor a$$…

By The Corporal

December 23, 2008 1:12 PM | Link to this

To Mrs. G.

Avoid the truth if you will but Southern Democrats held Presidents at their bidding for generations ………

Your party !

Nice try.

By The Corporal

December 23, 2008 1:23 PM | Link to this

To Amvet

1) Yes, the South lost a war that need not have been. However, just for the record, the Union lost more men and the Union Army was over 50% immigrant conscripts. Deo Vindice.

2) Regarding traitors/treason: The Attorney General refused to indict Jefferson Davis, et al for teason. Congress was irrate and ordered two additional special prosecutors to do the same. They both declined stating there was a good chance they would lose in a court of law thereby validating the right to succession. In their opinion, to have won the war by force of arms and then lose in the courts would have opened up a big can of worms.

By Copyleft

December 23, 2008 1:23 PM | Link to this

It’s amazing that Corporal’s insanity has progressed so far that he’s now trying to tear down Lincoln and say he wasn’t one of our greatest Presidents.

What’s next, an attempt to redeem Joseph McCarthy? (snicker)

By CP

December 23, 2008 1:31 PM | Link to this

“the pettiness of those who find fault with that decision won’t detract a bit from it….But go ahead any way.”

Straw-man

By Joe

December 23, 2008 1:33 PM | Link to this

Corporal,

Lest you forget the Southern Democrats almost uniformly became Republicans when the Kennedys and Johnson “betrayed” them by supporting integration…

Oh, wait, too much fact for you to deal with.

By The Corporal

December 23, 2008 1:34 PM | Link to this

To Copyleft:

If you win the war, you get to write the history. It takes time to correct that.

1) For example, did you know that a greater percentage of Confederate troops died at Camp Chase, Ohio than at Andersonville (I said percentage not total)? And the Union had the food stores available, etc.

2) I repeat: Lincoln started a war that need not have been resulting in the deaths of over 600,000 people and ill feelings/divions in our country that exist to this day. He trashed the Constitution by putting Northern newspaper editors in jail and shutting down their papers just for expressing a different viewpoint. In put legislators in jail for their politcal viewpoint. He tried to have the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court arrested by the U.S. Marshal for the District of Columbia who wouldn’t serve the warrant.

I could go on and on …….. but if you choose to ignore history … so be it.

By Midori

December 23, 2008 1:34 PM | Link to this

LOL,

Looks like Corporal is trying to dethrone Andy.

ROFL!!!!

By The Corporal

December 23, 2008 1:37 PM | Link to this

To Joe

No, I like truth whatever it is - labels change.

I disagree with almost uniformly but some did.

As I told Mrs. G. who was being a little sanctimonious about Republicans, “”what goes around comes around”.

Years down the road it may shift again.

By Mrs. Godzilla

December 23, 2008 1:38 PM | Link to this

corporal

ignore the truth? shirley you jest (and don’t let me call you shirley!)

You can compare apples and winnebagos all day long, but Lincoln was President. The other three never got close.

Maddox, Thurman and Wallace were all members of Team Racist….but if you think they controlled Presidents you are in la la land.

At ease dude!

Oh and BTW, what preemptive rebellions did they push to start?

OH and corporal….if I remember my history correctly unless the Souix and the Illini and the Cherokee were wearing blue or gray….ALL the soldiers who fought in the civil war were immigrants or their descendents.

By Mrs. Godzilla

December 23, 2008 1:40 PM | Link to this

corporal

wrong again.

I was being ALOT sanctimonius! (either definition accepted)

By Mike

December 23, 2008 1:41 PM | Link to this

I think it is great that Obama is using the Lincoln bible. I also find it laughable that Bookman would accuse others of being petty. What a hypocrite.

Maybe someday Bookman will realize that he is just the kind of petty partisan hack that he despises. Of course, doing so would require some modicum of intellectual honesty and self-awareness, so I doubt it.

By The Corporal

December 23, 2008 1:41 PM | Link to this

To Midori

Truth will speak for itself. I send it to touch whoever it may.

False history gets made all day, any day, the truth of the new is never on the news.

By Taxpayer

December 23, 2008 1:41 PM | Link to this

Corporal,

I am not a historian or someone that has studied the Civil War or Lincoln to any extent. That said, first, I have read many of Lincoln’s letters and speeches and they all leave me with a more favorable opinion of him than perhaps you possess, and given the progress (although it could be better) that we have made since Lincoln’s time (as opposed to the alternative), I think I’ll keep the more favorable memories and simply ignore those that you “cite” since they clearly add nothing of value to our current state of “acceptance” of all humans as “equals”. Second, I think one has to be careful when judging people from one period by using standards from another period. Perhaps Lincoln would be viewed as racist using some of today’s standards or perhaps not. It’s a topic you might wish to debate with one expressing an interest but as I said previously I can see no benefit in further exploration of the matter. Finally, by your reasoning, I suspect that in a few hundred years even Dubya has a chance at being looked upon in a favorable light. Perhaps he is working on planting that very seed even as we type. Who knows!

By Copyleft

December 23, 2008 1:45 PM | Link to this

And yet… with all his flaws, Lincoln still managed to be one of the greatest presidents this nation has ever been lucky enough to have. Amazing, isn’t it?

I don’t know anyone who pretends Lincoln was perfect, Corporal. But I know plenty of bitter, Old-South losers who like to complain because they were on the wrong side in the Civil War and pretend that Lincoln was a corrupt, tyrannical fool instead of the Union’s greatest champion.

FDR made some bad decisions too—and yet, he was still the greatest president of the 20th century. See how it works when you’re not blinded by hatred or hero-worship? You can actually acknowledge a great man’s flaws and still admire what he accomplished.

THAT’s a much more sophisticated and intellectual approach to history than the redneck rebels might be capable of, of course… which explains why there are so many Palindrones wandering around the South today.

By Midori

December 23, 2008 1:50 PM | Link to this

I’m not a historian either, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn once.

Which gives me a lot more credibility on race issues in my little finger than corporal has in his entire body.

By The Corporal

December 23, 2008 1:56 PM | Link to this

To Mrs. G.

1) If you think Southern Democrat Congressmen and Senators didn’t control a lot of what was going on in this country for years … you have your head in the sand.

Just ask a lot of black people from that era what it was like !!!!! They may disagree with you.

2) …. and many Cherokee wore gray. They even had their own unit and were the last to surrender in the field.

…. and unless there is an Indian still alive who was the first to walk over from what is now Russia, then they are all immigrant/descendants also.

3) …. by immigrants I meant those non-citizens just off the boat. The Army recruiters were waiting as they landed and offered (if you know what I mean) them a chance to join.

By Mike

December 23, 2008 1:58 PM | Link to this

“By Copyleft

See how it works when you’re not blinded by hatred or hero-worship?”

How would you know? Look at all of the ad-hominem attacks in your post. Who are you to talk about not being blinded by hatred? Try to get through a post without calling someone a redneck or some other culturally offensive name and you might have something to yap about. Until then, you are just displaying your hypocrisy.

By Mrs. Godzilla

December 23, 2008 2:07 PM | Link to this

corporal

contol a lot ? had Presidents at their bidding? pick one would ya?

influence? certainly. control….puhleese.

good point on the native americans coming over the land bridge…..you could see them marching over to the U.S. from Wasilla.

And as far as non citizens go…..

Patrick O’Day was born in Scotland. Francisco Martinez Flores was born in Mexico. Neither were U.S. citizens, but they died together in Iraq as U.S. Marines. At least seven U.S. servicemen killed in the Iraq war weren’t citizens, the Defense Department says. They’re among approximately 31,000 “green-card” soldiers, Marines, sailors and airmen in the U.S. military. They’re permanent legal residents but not U.S. citizens. Yet they chose to defend the country where they live.

Gotta love an immigrant.

By AJC/DNC Management

December 23, 2008 2:08 PM | Link to this

Oh yeah, LBJ, sure thing-

“These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don’t move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there’ll be no way of stopping them, we’ll lose the filibuster and there’ll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It’ll be Reconstruction all over again.”- Lyndon Baines Johnson

So what do you expect from a bunch of people that have a Ku Klux Klan grand wizard for a Senator?

~~~~~

Corporal- Let’s think about it this way:

Bush used WMD as an excuse to take out Saddam Hussein and free the Iraqi people from a murderous dictator. While the premise for invasion was a so-so idea, only the most slobbering of dunces can argue over the outcome, that being 25,000,000 people free from tyranny.

Now use this same scenario for Da Lincoln, maybe his initial intentions were squishy, bi partisan and misguided, but who the hell can fault him for the outcome or say he had nothing to do with it? Read the Emancipation Proclamation, if you don’t believe me.

At ease, Corporal.

By GOP is gone

December 23, 2008 2:10 PM | Link to this

You just had to get him started, didn’t you Jay.

Why do I always imagine a Foghorn Leghorn accent and a puffed up chest with the Corporal?

By The Corporal

December 23, 2008 2:15 PM | Link to this

Final Thoughts

(the Gunny is making me go to the store)

1) Lincoln had some good qualities of course. I just hope we view him in totality and when we do we will see he is far from our greatest president.

2) Obama can find a better person’s Bible to swear on. Maybe Billy Graham (our past Minister to Presidents) would loan his.

3) At least we got Jay to post a non-boring thread.

…. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

By AmVet

December 23, 2008 2:18 PM | Link to this

Regarding traitors/treason

Lincoln thought the war had been punishment enough on the traitors. He wanted to welcome Southerners back into the United States — as long as they agreed to honor the US Constitution and the Emancipation Proclamation.

He was almost exclusively interested in one thing and one thing only - rebuilding the United States of America. Union first. Union last. Union always.

And he succeeded.

Notwithstanding his compassion, many of the treasonous secessionists should have and would have been hung…

By Taxpayer

December 23, 2008 2:20 PM | Link to this

Midori,

You can definitely learn a lot staying at Holiday Inns. Perhaps we should send Corporal some discount extended stay coupons. 8>)

By getalife

December 23, 2008 2:20 PM | Link to this

Tighten up Andy.

You are losing the battle of parody troll on this blog.

Step it up.

By RealityKing

December 23, 2008 2:24 PM | Link to this

“the Civil War fought over slavery”?? Come on Jay…, no history revisionistic dumb downs please.

==> In the presidential election of 1860, the Republican Party, led by Abraham Lincoln, had campaigned against the EXPANSION of slavery beyond the states in which it already existed. Nope, not against ending all slavery. But a Republican victory did result in seven Southern states declaring their secession from the Union even before Lincoln took office. Kind of reminds me of the spoiled liberals of today.., ironic isn’t it.

Then, finally…, in September 22, 1862, almost two years after the start of the war, the Emancipation Proclamation was issued by then President Abraham Lincoln. The first article, declared the freedom of all slaves in any state of the Confederate States of America. Nope, not the Union.

====

So…, as history clearly states, secession was the reason slavery was eventually outlawed in the US, not the other way around.

And no! Obama doesn’t resemble Linclon, not at all!! Unless of course, you dubiously link the end of slavery to the end of Lincoln’s Republican ideals.

By The BlogFather of Scroll

December 23, 2008 2:26 PM | Link to this

Lincoln read his bible. His bible gave Lincoln some of the prose he used. That bible helped pave the way for the amazing words Lincoln spoke.

So maybe that’s what’s wrong with Andy and wipemysnatch: They haven’t read enough to write interesting narratives about anything. If you are amused by them, then know that it necessarily means you’re a moron.

‘muff said

By Mrs. Godzilla

December 23, 2008 2:27 PM | Link to this

GOP is gone

lookee here, remind you of someone?

By Bud Wiser

December 23, 2008 2:29 PM | Link to this

So who cares?

By rcs

December 23, 2008 2:32 PM | Link to this

Corporal, You’re dead on about Lincoln. Too bad people in this country don’t study their history a little more in-depth. If they did perhaps we wouldn’t be celebrating the communist, adulterer, plagiarist Holiday on Jan 19th.

By GOP is gone

December 23, 2008 2:32 PM | Link to this

I say, I say….Jay….UUUHHHMM, son

By RealityKing

December 23, 2008 2:37 PM | Link to this

Well OK…, I’ll give him one resemblance.

Lincoln appointed idiot Generals that lacked foresight causing the war to last much longer than necessary.

Obama just re-appointed the Bush war team.

By alex

December 23, 2008 2:44 PM | Link to this

First the civil war was Bold:not fought over slavery it was fought over states rights versus power of the federal government it was never about slavery in fact psrt of lincoln’s campaign promices was to not mess with the institution of slavery also he only declared slaves free in the areas that uprose against the union not all areas who had slaves were confederate. second this is the greatest insult on a true american by a phony, a muslum, a fraud, and a terrorist. obama is against everything lincoln stood for, his presidency is illegal and he is a communist i cannot believe the balls of this commy scum to insult a great american like lincoln

By Taxpayer

December 23, 2008 2:55 PM | Link to this

The bottom line here is that Lincoln supported the Unions and we should too. So what if they don’t make as good a car. It’s not their fault. Management told the designers to make it cheap. The Union just makes the best with what the designers give them. Setting up foreign-owned car shops in non-union states will not change that. So, blame management — not Lincoln — and support your local Union. With our help they can succeed.

By Joey

December 23, 2008 2:56 PM | Link to this

Before Jay introduces another subject this needs to be said:

Corporal and a couple of his friends pounded Jay and his cohorts into the sand on this one

By Copyleft

December 23, 2008 2:56 PM | Link to this

Wow, Alex… thanks for illustrating why the Obama-haters will never be taken seriously by sane people.

Or, thankfully, the rest of the world.

By Mrs. Godzilla

December 23, 2008 2:57 PM | Link to this

Joey….

corporal was pounding sand all right.

and we think it’s pretty funny.

By DB, Gwinnettian

December 23, 2008 3:02 PM | Link to this

Joey, are you under the impression that 1 wingnut + bold type = truth?

By RealityKing

December 23, 2008 3:04 PM | Link to this

Lincoln was great because he freed 4 million people by turning a brutually oppressive government into a democracy for all. i.e.., Bush has 14 times the presidential accomplishments of Lincoln.

By Midori

December 23, 2008 3:08 PM | Link to this

There goes Reality King skirting reality again.

By Copyleft

December 23, 2008 3:09 PM | Link to this

What reality ARE you king of, anyway?

Because we sure haven’t “freed” Iraq, unless you call destroying their society and infrastructure for the sake of setting up yet another Islamic theocracy “freedom.”

I’m curious: Do you also believe ignorance = strength, and war = peace? It must be such a fascinating land you live in!

Don’t mind us back here in America; we’ll run things while you’re gone.

By Hillbilly Deluxe

December 23, 2008 3:11 PM | Link to this

The Emancipation Proclamation applied only to the portion of Confederate States under Confederate control. It didn’t apply to Union held areas of Tennessee for example.

As for Obama using Lincoln’s Bible, he’s the President-Elect; it’s his choice.

By Mrs. Godzilla

December 23, 2008 3:12 PM | Link to this

Scientific equation

4,000,000(free)divided by 4526(dead)= 883.78258 multiplied by the O’Reilly Factor = 14

By Joe

December 23, 2008 3:21 PM | Link to this

Corporal,

The 13th Amendement freed all of the slaves in Kentucky and a few pockets of places where they were not already free. This came up to about 40,000 people. The rest of the millions were freed by the Proclamation.

Furthermore, to those who say that the Civil War was about States Rights, those states wanted the right TO HOLD SLAVES.

And for those who, like Corporal and the other right wing idiots here, forgot history, the South was STAUNCHLY Democratic at one time UNTIL integration. Then the Southern Democrats became Republicans en masse. This is why no Democrat has truly carried the South in decades (Clinton came closest) and it’s also why Nixon’s and Rove’s tactics of separation and fearmongering have worked so well in this region. Today’s Republican party only shares names with Lincoln’s party, just as today’s Democrats are nothing like the people who Corporal tried pulling out of the woodwork. Sure, the Klan may have been Democrats 75 years ago, but today they are David Duke, who is a Republican. Heck, Duke used to be a Southern Democrat until he realized that his ideas were more aligned with the Republican party.

By RealityKing

December 23, 2008 3:28 PM | Link to this

I too hope President Obama can live up to those unselfish standards. But short of invading Iran and Syria, the pressure from delusional progressives is surely too much for any mere mortal to accomplish. So clearly there is a huge let down coming.., not to mention the $15 trillion dollar national debt.

By getalife

December 23, 2008 3:34 PM | Link to this

Well, drudgepacker is not patriotic.

{{{DRUDGE POLL}}}SHIRTLESS:

OBAMA

35% 23,814 PUTIN

65% 43,484

Total Votes: 67,298

Pinkos.

By RealityKing

December 23, 2008 3:49 PM | Link to this

Some say Lincoln lied to the America people. He started the war on the bases of preserving the Union, then in the middle of the war, when everything was falling apart, he said it was about freeing the slaves. He arrested his opponents during his re-election and his management of the war was a complete disaster. Articles of impeachment were even considered at the time. Sound familiar? Change Obama believes in???

By spankmonkey

December 23, 2008 3:50 PM | Link to this

I thought Obama was going to be sworn in with the Koran. That’s what the republicans said before the election anyway…

By sunshine and thunder

December 23, 2008 3:55 PM | Link to this

Abraham Lincoln freed no slave.

Abraham Lincoln started the WBTS when he refused to stand down at Sumter and, instead, sent supply ships into the harbor while secretly making plans for war.

Abraham Lincoln was a witty, charming gentleman who fooled a lot of the people a lot of the time.

“There is always one flea a dog can’t reach.” A. Lincoln

“You cannot help a man by doing for him that which he could and should do for himself.” A. Lincoln

By fly-on-the-wall

December 23, 2008 3:56 PM | Link to this

Huh, a history lesson for the corporal. The Southern States started the war by firing the first shot. The Southern States started the war by attempting to secede from the Union by force. Lincoln did NOT start the war, unlike Bush who did start a war. Are you one of those southerners who thinks the south will rise again? They got their collective butts kicked by the Union forces. Last time I checked my history book the southern forces surrendered. I’m not sure where you are getting this revisionist crap history from that Lincoln started the war but you need to quit reading that trash and open up a real book.

By AJC/DNC Management

December 23, 2008 3:58 PM | Link to this

Thee Obamagasm award for 2008, chosen from millions upon millions of entries, but the one that stuck all over everything, ew-

drumroll please

“Some princes are born in palaces. Some are born in mangers. But a few are born in the imagination, out of scraps of history and hope….Barack Hussein Obama did not win because of the color of his skin. Nor did he win in spite of it. He won because at a very dangerous moment in the life of a still young country, more people than have ever spoken before came together to try to save it. And that was a victory all its own.”— Time’s Nancy Gibbs, Nov. 17 cover story.

Why, this reminds me of something-

Leni Riefenstahl heard presidential candidate Adolf Hitler speak at a rally in 1932 and was mesmerized by his talent as a public speaker. Describing the experience in her Memoiren, Riefenstahl wrote: “I had an almost apocalyptic vision that I was never able to forget. It seemed as if the earth’s surface were spreading out in front of me, like a hemisphere that suddenly splits apart in the middle, spewing out an enormous jet of water, so powerful that it touched the sky and shook the earth.”

According to the Daily Express of 24 April 1934, Leni Riefenstahl had read Mein Kampf during the making of Das Blaue Licht. This newspaper article quotes her as having commented, “The book made a tremendous impression on me. I became a confirmed National Socialist after reading the first page. I felt a man who could write such a book would undoubtedly lead Germany. I felt very happy that such a man had come.”

ew

By The Corporal

December 23, 2008 4:01 PM | Link to this

Hey Guys I’m back.

Sorry, I know that bothers a lot of you.

However, I would like to address a serious issue to all of you that I have addressed before that no one has to date answered.

Why is it that some of you have to be so inconsiderate of other posters on these blogs.

Sometimes it’s direct name calling, sometimes it’s a personal attack and sometimes it’s just plain rudeness.

Why is it so hard to just discuss or debate the issue at hand? If you think someone has made a good point and you wish to counter - that’s what makes it interesting. If you think the post is not up to your standard then just don’t respond.

Now, don’t get me wrong. If you knew me in person you would know me to be a very mild mannered, respectful individual. Unfortunately, because we can’t use body language or volume or facial expressions on these blogs we have a tendency to verbalize a little too strongly at times to try to make our point. I am certainly guilty of that.

But that is not what I am talking about and I hope you can see the difference. It’s the same situation our ancestors got themselves into that resulted in the conflict we have been “discussing”. A strong viewpoint is not hatred but it can evolve into it. When you can no longer be civil you are asking for trouble. As bloggers and as a nation we are headed that way.

My New Year’s resolution is going to be to try to be a better blogger by sticking to the facts, arguing/debating my point as best I can while staying away from being vitriolic in any way.

God bless …………..

By getalife

December 23, 2008 4:03 PM | Link to this

Ah, Andy plays the Hitler card in a desperate attempt to capture king of the parody troll from pf and the private.

The race tightens.

By getalife

December 23, 2008 4:06 PM | Link to this

Whoa, in a stunning move, the private plays the shame card.

Its neck and neck.

By Mrs. Godzilla

December 23, 2008 4:13 PM | Link to this

Shirtless President Pool Party

By The Corporal

December 23, 2008 4:16 PM | Link to this

To fly-on-the-wall

Lincoln had agreed in writing to not try to resupply Ft. Sumter until the matter could be worked out. Everyone wanted to avoid a conflict.

Since those Federal troops were obviously hungry, provisions were being supplied by South Carolina forces and the officers usually were invited to a home in Charleston for their dinner each evening.

When Lincoln, in violation of the agreement he made, decided to run the blockade to resupply the fort with munitions, that was an act of war in anyone’s manual. Reducing the fort was merely South Carolina’s answerto Lincoln’s act of war.

Thanks for your input.

By The Corporal

December 23, 2008 4:18 PM | Link to this

To getalife

You miss the point.

By getalife

December 23, 2008 4:22 PM | Link to this

Here is another tin foil hat for you private:

So Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, and Karl Rove all claim that the financial crisis was a liberal conspiracy, generated either by evil mastermind Chuck Schumer or by wily journalists.

Geez.

By fly-on-the-wall

December 23, 2008 4:23 PM | Link to this

Corporal, it can’t be an act of war. The southerners were TERRORISTS by today’s standards. That was a Federal fort with Federal troops. Lincoln had every right to do whatever he felt necessary to do. He did not have to answer to terrorists.

By AJC/DNC Management

December 23, 2008 4:27 PM | Link to this

Who’d you vote for on the Drudge page, al-Gitmo?

The tough, serious looking muscular dude or Oblahmasan?

Me, I voted for Big O and her eats.

She could take out both of those klowns.

By sunshine and thunder

December 23, 2008 4:29 PM | Link to this

Corporal

You are correct. Lincoln knew that J. Davis would have to remove the Union men garrisoned at Sumter or else Lincoln would do the same thing at each and every former Union fort in the South.

Lincoln instigated the Ft. Sumter engagement so as to get congress to agree to declare a war. He even wrote a letter to Gustavus Fox the retired Navy captain who came up with the plan to provision Sumter and force the CSA to act:

“You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result.”

By fly-on-the-wall

December 23, 2008 4:30 PM | Link to this

Corporal - supplies to a federal site by feds is not a act of war in and by itself, the South Carolina people actually made the act of war first by blockading and threatening the forts - the feds adbandoned Ft. Moultrie across the channel as they could not defend it (i.e. not a man made island etc). If all was so peaceful as you claim, then the feds would not have left Moultrie etc.

What sources are you using for your version of history? Please supply them.

By JAY BOOKMAN

December 23, 2008 4:48 PM | Link to this

So Lincoln started the war by refusing to surrender.

Just like we started WWII by refusing to give Pearl Harbor to the Japanese.

By AJC/DNC Management

December 23, 2008 4:53 PM | Link to this

Seeking to lock in minority voters for Democrats, Bill Clinton in 1993 set a national homeownership goal of 55% for blacks, a major increase from existing levels.

To achieve it, he tasked his regulators to lead an anti-redlining crusade against the banking industry that included revising Community Reinvestment Act regulations to pressure banks to adopt “flexible” lending standards for low-income borrowers.

Yet no Clinton housing crusader was interviewed for the Times’ one-sided story. The paper’s reporters didn’t even bother to search their own archives. Had they done so, they would have found a Sept. 20, 1999, article by Steven A. Holmes that reported:

“Fannie Mae has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people.”

It quoted former Clinton Budget Director Franklin Raines, who Clinton installed at the helm of Fannie. Raines said he had relaxed credit standards to meet the Clinton administration’s goal of 50% loans to low-income minority borrowers.IBD

Uh, like I was saying.

By getalife

December 23, 2008 4:58 PM | Link to this

Andy,

I am a real American thinking country first and voted for our President.

The Clinton card, well played.

You win king of the parody troll.

Sorry pf.

By The Corporal

December 23, 2008 5:02 PM | Link to this

To getalife

Thanks for your input.

To fly-on-the-wall

1) Which of our founding fathers were terrorists for firing on the representatives of the Crown?

2) I also refer you to Sunshine’s post above (@ 4:29) for the more specific factual information you asked for regarding Lincoln’s true intent.

Thank you for your input.

To Jay

A better analogy is that the Japanese fleet was running our protective blockade. Our planes failed to detect them.

Had we seen them two hours before they launced their planes would we have been justified in firing on them? In other words, if they hadn’t done anything yet, was their presence there an act of war under the circumstances??

By rcs

December 23, 2008 5:10 PM | Link to this

Mr. Bookman,

WWII started in 1939. The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor in 1941.

By The Corporal

December 23, 2008 5:12 PM | Link to this

P.S. to Jay

Since you brought up Hawaii I assume you know they have a very strong independence movement. And one day a year, the U.S. flag is not flown over their State Capitol - the Hawaii flag replaces it.

If you also know the history of how we obtained that territory, it’s not very pretty.

Don’t get me wrong, the world has changed and I do NOT believe succession is a good road today …. but are those who seek peaceful independence for Hawaii terrorists as one of our posters would claim?

By GOP is gone

December 23, 2008 5:13 PM | Link to this

Mrs. G,

That was LOL funny. I just got the link to open.

Off to bake a Paula Dean kill me with butter and heavy cream cake. I hope to win the next bake off in the spring. After all I am the reigning champion.

By @@

December 23, 2008 5:36 PM | Link to this

jay, it’s kinda like the hollywood showmanship I mentioned downstairs which reminds me…..

ByteMe and Cindy:

In response to your posts on the previous thread. Reagan was a liberal democrat before he became a Republican. He was a union man. He was a great admirer of FDR and “The New Deal”. He was governor of one of our most densely populated states. He was not well-liked in Hollywood. As a matter of fact, the only thing his liberal opponents liked about him was that they truly believed the public didn’t support his conservative policies, but rather had been duped by his talents as a Hollywood showman. He surprised them.

Reagan, promised and largely delivered substantive policies that a majority of the electorate desired. He may not have fulfilled his pledge to radically shrink the overall size of government, (in order to procure military spending, he had to compromise on some social programs) but he reasserted American military prowess, led a backlash against liberal permissiveness, and pruned social services that many middle-class voters had no wish to keep supporting. They supported him, not because they were fooled by clever image-making but because he both articulated their conservative values and enacted policies that moved the country rightward.

Arnold? There’s no way a politician can be married to a Kennedy and come out a republican. There’s just no way.

So I have to wonder guys — will your Obama stay right or go back to the left?

Have to mention this….I was reading a left-wing blogsite. Several of the comments centered around the fact that they were disappointed in Obama’s rightward movement. Said he was doing what he had to do, but that they were counting on him to keep his promises to the left.

Will he?

Time will tell. If not, the left has been relegated to the proverbial ash heap. If it turns out that’s the case, I couldn’t be happier.

By sunshine and thunder

December 23, 2008 5:40 PM | Link to this

JAY

You wrote:

So Lincoln started the war by refusing to surrender.

Where did you read that?

Lincoln started the war by betting the CSA would defend itself when a fleet of Northern warships entered Charleston Harbor.

Lincoln even had defenseless tugboats sent in to Charleston Harbor ahead of the warships that they would be fired on first and create the sympathy factor in congress.

“The newly-elected governor of South Carolina, Francis Pickens, saw the danger that Lincoln might, as an excuse, send a force of U.S. Navy warships to Charleston Harbor supposedly to bring food to Maj Anderson’s Union force holed up in Fort Sumter.

“So Gov Pickens opened negotiations with Maj Anderson, and concluded a deal permitting Anderson to send boats safely to the market in Charleston once a week, where Anderson’s men would be allowed to buy whatever victuals they wished.

“(This arrangement remained in effect until a day or so before the U.S. Navy warships arrived at Charleston). Maj Anderson wrote privately to friends, saying that he hoped Lincoln would not use Fort Sumter as the excuse to start a war, by sending the U.S. Navy to resupply it.”

Not only did the South not want war, neither did the rest of the Republicans in the North, including congress.

The only ones pounding war drums were the handful of abolitionists in and around New England and a tiny but powerful number of Northern industrialists who were using the strong hand of government to collect tariffs from the South to finance their growth.

Oh, and Lincoln. The WBTS slaughtered 628,000 people.

By Mrs.Godzilla

December 23, 2008 5:40 PM | Link to this

corporal

forgive me for butting in but your first question at 5:02 grabbed my attention.

To be honest, isn’t the terrorist label something of a matter of perspective?

To me, the American rebels were freedom fighters, to the British they were terorists.

The Boston Tea Party bunch go down in history as brave heros, is it because the colonists won?

By spankmonkey

December 23, 2008 5:54 PM | Link to this

Corporal… agreed…

God Bless, MERRY CHRISTMAS, and a happy new year!

By The Corporal

December 23, 2008 6:02 PM | Link to this

To Mrs. G.

You bring up some good points.

I was trying to do a reverse pivot on fly-in-the-wall to entice a response.

Let’s look at it this way. Better terminoliogy would be freedom fighter and traitor.

To me terrorist applies only to those who specifically target civilians.

That said, it all boils down to who wins. If our founding fathers had lost, many would have been hung by the British as traitors and you and I would probably refer to them in that way. Since they won (and I’m glad they did), they are hero’s and freedom fighters to us.

If the Confederates had won (and I am ambivalent on that one) they would have been freedom fighters but instead many refer to them as rebels/traitors.

It amazes me that people can’t see the only difference is who wins.

To Sunshine and Thunder

Excellent response !!

By Mrs.Godzilla

December 23, 2008 6:06 PM | Link to this

So corporal we agree.

It is a matter of perspective.

Great way to begin the holiday.

Merry Christmas!

By AmVet

December 23, 2008 6:07 PM | Link to this

If the Confederates had won the CSA would be a third world country…

OW!!!

By sunshine and thunder

December 23, 2008 6:33 PM | Link to this

Most yankees already think the South is a third world country. Good. Maybe they will stay away and keep their truffles and Brooklynese up there with them.

The best thing ever to come out of the North is I-95.

How many yankees does it take to screw in a light bulb?

By The Corporal

December 23, 2008 6:50 PM | Link to this

To Amvet

If the Confederacy had won (or better have been allowed to go in peace as the New England States almost did during the War of 1812) the following would probably/hopefully have happened:

1) 600,000+ lives saved.

2) The financial cost of war avoided.

3) Slaves eventually freed without all of the additional misery they endured after the war.

4) A return to the Union by most or all of the Southern States under better economic terms than before the War as dictated by the North.

5) Much better relations between the races than occurred because of Reconstruction.

6) A Federal government reduced in power and more in keeping with the Constitution as outlined by our founding fathers.

Just my take …..

P.S. In case you believe the South was treasonous in trying to form their own country, may I remind you that during the War of 1812, some New England State legislatures voted to provide food and military supplies to the British Army in Canada. Now that fits the textbook definition of treason.

By @@

December 23, 2008 6:54 PM | Link to this

WOW!!!!!

Having grown up and gone to school in California, I/We never studied The Civil War. Brushed over it, but our history classes centered on the war with Mexico.

I guess it’s true what they say — all politics are local.

To The Corporal and sunshine and thunder. Thanks!

History class wasn’t boring today.

By The Corporal

December 23, 2008 6:59 PM | Link to this

To Mrs. G.

Yes, we agree on that one - refreshing!

I think we know also that this great Republic will not last in its present form forever.

Fifty, a hundred years from now will there be successions? regional splits? a revolution?

God only knows how long our great experiment will last ………..

By Bud Wiser

December 23, 2008 7:02 PM | Link to this

Yeah, Osama’s Koran is lost in some cave in Pakistan and they can’t find it ……

By The Corporal

December 23, 2008 7:35 PM | Link to this

To @@

May I recommend “The Real Lincoln** by Thomas DiLorenzo.

By "The Corporal"

December 23, 2008 8:19 PM | Link to this

P.S. to Mrs. G.

I have a confession to make.

I went to Missionary Ridge Elementary School in the 5th and 6th grade (located right on top of the ridge). Confederate canons were in the front yard of the school facing Chattanooga.

During recess, I killed a lot of Yankees coming up over that ridge. I was usually the loader.

It’s also (obviously) where the history bug bit me.

……………… :o)

By The Corporal

December 23, 2008 8:36 PM | Link to this

Trivia

No cheating with Google, etc.

Does anyone know the only father/son duo in the history of the United States military to both win the Medal of Honor**?

By sunshine and thunder

December 23, 2008 8:39 PM | Link to this

@@

The Civil War (nothing “civil” about it. It was the War Between the States) is taught today as the defining moment between slavery and manumission. So, of course, in our 2 hour movie world there has to be good guys and bad guys.

The South may have fought the war over slavery among other beefs and, if you read a lot of the proclamations of the era, there was much ado about it on the Southern side.

At the time the Southern leadership had to rally the population as best they could and tariffs just wouldn’t do it.

But the North NEVER went to war to abolish slavery. Either General Grant or General Sherman, I can’t remember which right now, said: “If I thought the war was fought over slavery I should hand my sword over now”.

I think the greatest lie of all is that the Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves. It didn’t free a single slave anywhere. It was a wartime measure to try to cause a slave uprising in the South and, mainly, to try to prevent the support of the Europeans for the Southern cause.

By The Corporal

December 23, 2008 9:55 PM | Link to this

Confederate Battle Flags

Regarding some earlier posts re: treason and traitors, in 1905 Congress passed a law to return all captured/surrendered Confederate Battle Flags to their rightful State.

The law included the line The loyalty of the Southern states is nowhere questioned. Many of those Northern Congressmen fought against the South.

I think they are the best judges of what contituted treason.