Michele Bachmann Expected to Form GOP Exploratory Committee

[Scott_Lafrance]

First state to give women the right to vote - the liberal bastion of Wyoming (Dick Cheney’s home state).

The 19th Amendment was only passed through congress in 1920 AFTER Republicans took control. Votes in 1915, 1918 and 1919 went down to defeat under democrat party control.

You might want to brush up on your history a bit.

Let’s not forget that the Civil Rights Act was first proposed by President Eisenhower and its main opponent in the Senate was Lyndon Johnson, the very man who gets credit for signing it.

 

[Lujack]

Abraham Lincoln was probably the worst president we ever had, without qualifiers. The guy was an unmitigated disaster for the country.

Show me how. The Civil War was a horrible thing, but it was took place because the South’s reaction to an electoral defeat was not “We have lost, we’ll try again in 1864”, but “Well, since we don’t have power, we’re out. Oh, and we’re taking the forts built with federal money with us.” How would a divided nation have been better?

Oh! You bought the lie that Abraham Lincoln had any motivation whatsoever about emancipating the slaves when he became President! Now I see where you are coming from.

Oh! You decided to employ the irritating tactic of condescension! Now I see where you are coming from.

I can argue Abraham Lincoln’s motives all day long, but there’s no point in doing that, because I’ve been through this many times before-I’ll produce my evidence, you’ll produce the few quotes that get used every time totally stripped of any context and place, ignore any refutations of them, and we’ll go around in circles.

So let’s just talk about results-when he was shot on Good Friday 1865, he had dealt a mortal blow to slavery, watched the House of Representatives pass the 13th Amendment (a key plank in his 1864 re-election platform), and ensured that the nation wouldn’t be split apart. He had also given the remarkably powerful Second Inaugural and even a speech advocating for black suffrage.

Now, had Lincoln let the Southern States go, there would be no movement towards abolition (in fact, in most Southern states, any mention of the possibility of abolition was outright illegal; even Kentucky ran out Cassius Clay), there would be two nations rather than one, and a hostile border running the length of the continent. How is that better?

 

[SamH]

Show me how. The Civil War was a horrible thing, but it was took place because the South’s reaction to an electoral defeat was not “We have lost, we’ll try again in 1864”, but “Well, since we don’t have power, we’re out. Oh, and we’re taking the forts built with federal money with us.” How would a divided nation have been better?

Didn’t the democrats once again react in the same way in 2000? Only they fought it in the courts instead of the battle fields. They still succeeded in their goal of a divided country.

 

[estesbob]

What if somebody wrote a song about him? There’s songs about a lot of presidents-Lincoln had a very popular and hyperbolic song written about him for the 1860 campaign, and that was before he’d actually done anything to make him great:

youtube.com/watch?v=8nJ1iHPMrf0&feature=related

That’s Lincoln and Liberty Too, which is funny especially because its to the tune of an old, silly Irish drinking song.

My favorite blast from the past is “Ma, Ma Wheres my Pa? Hes in the White House making the Law, Ha ,Ha ,Ha”

The truth is the vitriol in politcs today is rather mild comapred to the past,

 

[SamH]

Does any diminishing of past presidents’ accomplishments serve any purpose today?

:

I can not diminish his accomplishments, they are a matter of historic fact, but I can accurately state them. But some people resent the truth.

 

[Lujack]

50 years later they still do it with Kennedy.

Acomplishments: Crickets chirp…

Failures: Bay of Pigs,

Indeed a failure, but one shared with Eisenhower, under whom the planning began. Had Nixon won, much the same thing would have happened.

Cuban Missile Crisis,

If Kennedy failed in the Cuban Missile Crisis, what would success have looked like? Because getting the missiles out of Cuba without starting World War III or losing face, and doing it in such a way that the Soviets never tried something like that again sure looked like success to me.

racial civil unrest,

I’ll give you that Kennedy didn’t do enough on civil rights; he gets an unfairly good reputation because all his failures get passed on to LBJ. However, there were no major race riots during his presidency; his failure to pass the needed civil rights legislation is shared with Eisenhower.

Vietnam,.QUOTE]

Kennedy did indeed start us down the road to Vietnam, but we never did get the chance to see how he’d have handled later events. Its unfair to ascribe full blame for those events to him, since its impossible to know what he might have done in 1964 and 1965.

massive military spending,

Massive military spending in the midst of the Cold War? No way! Reagan used massive military spending, too.

A skillful media manipulator, Kennedy used television to present a carefully constructed public image to Americans. Kennedy’s constituents saw him as vigorous, healthy, a dedicated husband, a giant among men. That he was none of these things did not matter then or now.

Kennedy was popular before his television debate with Nixon, and he was actually a war hero. He was indeed a philanderer, but that does not make him a disaster of a president.

JFK has the odd tendency to be both underrated and overrated-instead of being viewed as a mediocre president who, with the major exception of the Cuban Missile Crisis, had something of a quiet three years in office, he is either a near-great or a bum.

 

[estesbob]

Abraham Lincoln was probably the worst president we ever had, without qualifiers. The guy was an unmitigated disaster for the country.

Oh! You bought the lie that Abraham Lincoln had any motivation whatsoever about emancipating the slaves when he became President! Now I see where you are coming from.

He is a disaster only for those who pine for a South that never really existed. A Disaster for those who really beleive that the Civil War was about “states rights” and tarriffs".

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

The truth is the vitriol in politcs today is rather mild comapred to the past,

I think that none of it from the present can hold a candle to the sheer hatred and vitriol shown in newspaper editorials and editorial cartoons of the past, particularly that of the 19th century. When a newspaper didn’t like you, they showed it!

 

[Lujack]

Didn’t the democrats once again react in the same way in 2000? Only they fought it in the courts instead of the battle fields. They still succeeded in their goal of a divided country.

This is the first time that I’ve ever heard of a battle in the courts that lasted several months described as similar to a Civil War that ended in the deaths of hundreds of thousands. Or a dispute over who won the election as being compared to attempt to secede, and in the case of West Pointers who fought for the Confederacy, commit outright treason.

I think there is an essential difference between arguing over who won a very close election, and deciding that a clear defeat means its time to leave and steal all the forts.

 

[SamH]

I think there is an essential difference between arguing over who won a very close election, and deciding that a clear defeat means its time to leave and steal all the forts.

Actually I was replying to your point of

because the [democrat’s] reaction to an electoral defeat was not “We have lost, we’ll try again in 1864”,

.

 

[Lujack]

Let’s not forget that the Civil Rights Act was first proposed by President Eisenhower and its main opponent in the Senate was Lyndon Johnson, the very man who gets credit for signing it.

The Civil Rights of 1957 was significantly more limited than the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or the Voting Rights Act, both of which originated with LBJ. Nonetheless, Eisenhower did pass it, and Johnson had opposed earlier Civil Rights bills. However, without Johnson’s support of the 1957 Act, it never would have gotten through the Senate.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Show me how. The Civil War was a horrible thing, but it was took place because the South’s reaction to an electoral defeat was not “We have lost, we’ll try again in 1864”, but “Well, since we don’t have power, we’re out. Oh, and we’re taking the forts built with federal money with us.” How would a divided nation have been better?

Oh! You decided to employ the irritating tactic of condescension! Now I see where you are coming from.

I can argue Abraham Lincoln’s motives all day long, but there’s no point in doing that, because I’ve been through this many times before-I’ll produce my evidence, you’ll produce the few quotes that get used every time totally stripped of any context and place, ignore any refutations of them, and we’ll go around in circles.

So let’s just talk about results-when he was shot on Good Friday 1865, he had dealt a mortal blow to slavery, watched the House of Representatives pass the 13th Amendment (a key plank in his 1864 re-election platform), and ensured that the nation wouldn’t be split apart. He had also given the remarkably powerful Second Inaugural and even a speech advocating for black suffrage.

Now, had Lincoln let the Southern States go, there would be no movement towards abolition (in fact, in most Southern states, any mention of the possibility of abolition was outright illegal; even Kentucky ran out Cassius Clay), there would be two nations rather than one, and a hostile border running the length of the continent. How is that better?

Here, argue with this** FACT**.

In his first Inaugural Speech, on March 4, 1861, President Abraham Lincoln approved Constitutional Amendment that would guarantee permanent slavery in the United States. Lincoln stated in his Speech, “I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. Holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.”

If Lincoln was so anti-slavery, why did he endorse and advocate for ratification a Constitutional Amendment (it would have been 13 if ratified by the states) to make slavery permanent? If there was a Constitutional Amendment that had been passed by the House and the Senate and signed by President James Buchanan and endorsed by new President Lincoln, why did the southern states secede anyway, if the war was about slavery, seeing that the government was making moves to make slavery permanent?

This Permanent Slavery Amendment that Lincoln endorsed was passed on March 2, 1861 by a vote of over 66% of both Houses of the U. S. Congress, after most Southern States had withdrawn from the United States and had formed their own nation, the Confederate States of America. If the Southern States wanted slavery protected forever, then all they would have to do is return to the Union and ratify this Constitutional Amendment.

This overwhelming 66% vote by the Northern controlled U. S. Congress proves that the North officially and openly supported slavery and has exposed, as a farce, the North’s pretensions of being opposed to slavery. Had the North been opposed to slavery, they would not have passed such an Amendment supporting slavery. Moreover, on the very same day, Congress also passed the Morrill Tariff Act, the highest import tax in U.S. history, which raised import taxes on Southerners from 20% to 40%.

 

[ProVobis]

You missed the word “accomplishments”. Neither act accomplished anything.

I disagree. I think it raised awareness of the evils of the Federal Reserve and also showed that JFK was more discerning in his ability to select members to the Supreme Court than either of his two successors.

But if you want to play that game, please show where Nixon or Johnson accomplished anything.

 

[estesbob]

This is the first time that I’ve ever heard of a battle in the courts that lasted several months described as similar to a Civil War that ended in the deaths of hundreds of thousands. Or a dispute over who won the election as being compared to attempt to secede, and in the case of West Pointers who fought for the Confederacy, commit outright treason.

I think there is an essential difference between arguing over who won a very close election, and deciding that a clear defeat means its time to leave and steal all the forts.

In any other county Lee , Longstreet et al would have been hung by the end of April 1865. They were ineed guilty of treason and there is no honor in what they did.

 

[Lujack]

First state to give women the right to vote - the liberal bastion of Wyoming (Dick Cheney’s home state).

The 19th Amendment was only passed through congress in 1920 AFTER Republicans took control. Votes in 1915, 1918 and 1919 went down to defeat under democrat party control.

You might want to brush up on your history a bit.

You also might want to brush up on your history a little bit. 1920 was a time of transition for the Republican Party-the progressives were being pushed out. Remember in 1920 that Bob La Follette was a Republican. The Bull Moose were still in the party; within ten years they would not be.

 

[ProVobis]

THe problem with progressives is that they start out with some good ideas, but cannot seem to let it go once they have their changes implemented. They keep pushing and pushing until the most extreme manifestation of their goals become realized. Look at feminism, started off with awakening society to the desparity between men and women in the work place, and the trauma of women in the home under brutal husbands. I say YAY, equality and loving treatment by husbands. But no, they can’t stop there. They keep pushing and pushing until they equate marriage with slavery and consentual sex with rape.

Very true but one has to realize that it takes both sides to make our system of checks and balances work. Go back to 1770. The conservatives fought to pay homage and taxes to the King of England. If it hadn’t been for the progressives, we’d still be doing that with the Queen.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

He is a disaster only for those who pine for a South that never really existed. A Disaster for those who really beleive that the Civil War was about “states rights” and tarriffs".

History has facts and myths Bob. The myth is that the North was anti-slavery. However, the facts of the Permanent Slavery amendment passed overwhelmingly by the North, signed by James Buchanan, and endorsed as constitutional law by President Lincoln proves that my premise is correct. Facts, Bob, facts.

 

[SamH]

You also might want to brush up on your history a little bit. 1920 was a time of transition for the Republican Party-the progressives were being pushed out. Remember in 1920 that Bob La Follette was a Republican. The Bull Moose were still in the party; within ten years they would not be.

Actually the support for civil rights in the Republican Party has transcended members and segments of party philosophy for over 150 years – actually it’s been a plank since its inception. Something the democrat party can’t even begin to claim. The “progressives” were no real fans of equality or civil rights as exemplified by Wilson and other democrat progressives of the time.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Actually the support for civil rights in the Republican Party as transcended members and segments of party philosophy for over 150 years – actually it’s been a plank since its inception. Something the democrat party can’t even begin to claim. The “progressives” were no real fans of equality or civil rights as exemplified by Wilson and other democrat progressives of the time.

Ya, WOodrow Wilson. The man who resegregated the desegregated and completely integrated military. That guy was AWESOME! Lets see what else that brainiac gave us. The Federal Reserve!!! Hey, why bother with real money when we can just print up whatever we need. If we deem we need more, we just print MORE! Great policy Woody.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

I disagree. I think it raised awareness of the evils of the Federal Reserve and also showed that JFK was more discerning in his ability to select members to the Supreme Court than either of his two successors.

But if you want to play that game, please show where Nixon or Johnson accomplished anything.

Well, there is that old Vulcan proverb: “Only Nixon could go to China.”