Jump to content

Ronald Reagan... My God

vin2basketball

By vin2basketball
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

GHOSTUSER

GHOSTUSER 361

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, CO Horn said:

What US metro area has the largest Iranian population, and how much does the average home cost in that area in comparison with the rest of the US?

It is widely believed that most Iranian-Americans in the United States are clustered in the large cities of California, namely Greater Los Angeles, the San Francisco Bay Area, San Diego, Sacramento, and Fresno. According to extrapolated U.S. Census data and other independent surveys done by Iranian-Americans themselves in 2009, there were an estimated one million Iranian-Americans living in the U.S.,[62] with the largest concentration—about 300,000 people—living in the greater Los Angeles area

Iranian-Americans don't seem to engage in American Politics; the fact that only 10 percent of them voted in the 2004 election, according to surveys in large American cities, is evidence of this. The group that published this information urged Iranian-Americans to come together and vote, in order to make a difference in how the United States foreign policy operates with regards to Iran.[116]

An August 2008 Zogby International poll, commissioned by the Public Affairs Alliance of Iranian Americans, found that approximately one-half of Iranian Americans identified themselves as registered Democrats, in contrast to one in eight as Republicans and one in four as independents (2008).[102]

PAAIA  like the NIAC are paid agents of the Islamic Republic and have no legitimacy. Take a look at the most popular Iranian opposition leader. #RESTART IRAN. MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CO Horn

CO Horn 161

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

PAAIA  like the NIAC are paid agents of the Islamic Republic and have no legitimacy. Take a look at the most popular Iranian opposition leader. #RESTART IRAN. MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN.

 

So you're saying the poll is incorrect?  I've seen no data from you to support your statement that many Iranians share your beliefs.  I'd like to see any data that states Iranians support Trump. A poll from last October shows that 20% have a favorable view of Trump's Presidency, up from 13% in 2018.  76% disapprove, down from 78%. 

Most Iranians that I know fall in line with poll and are not supportive of Trump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RPM

RPM 26323

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, NowThis said:

1984 - even Hawaii went for Reagan over Mondale who only won his home MN.  Devastation.  I was in HS at the time in Htown, the blood was thick with Reagan Bush. As bad as you think he was, he did liberate Grenada, gave Amnesty to a bunch of Messcans and fixed inflation/unemployment by not interfering with the Federal Reserve.  Much better than Trump. 

You left out his Beirut cut and run after our barracks was suicide bombed.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89734

Posted
Posted
51 minutes ago, Nivek said:


A lot less debt and stupid foreign policy. Saying Ronnie won the cold war is akin to saying the slowguy on the relay won the race. Or crediting the current economic situation to Trump.

Not saying he won it, a lot of those policies were from the folks around him - just saying that things probably play out worse with a second Carter term, and I think Iran-Contra would pale in comparison to the shenanigans the elder Bush would have gotten us into, in 1981.   I shudder to think about some of the people the elder Bush would have had on his staff in ‘81.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NowThis

NowThis 931

Posted
Posted
30 minutes ago, RPM said:

You left out his Beirut cut and run after our barracks was suicide bombed.

US troops had to leave, after all, would they stay there for 20 years in the middle of a civil war?  Besides, the US Navy did bomb several Shia areas as they left, old school naval artillery fire. I wasn't too happy about that as it massacred lots of civilians. 

 

======

On February 7, 1984, President Reagan ordered the Marines to begin withdrawing from Lebanon largely because of waning congressional support for the mission after the attacks on the barracks.[96][97][98][99][100][101] The withdrawal of the 22d MAU from the BIA was completed 12:37 PM on February 26, 1984.[102] "Fighting between the Lebanese Army and Druze militia in the nearby Shouf mountains provided a noisy backdrop to the Marine evacuation. One officer commented: 'This ceasefire is getting louder.'"[103]

On February 8, 1984, the USS New Jersey fired almost 300 shells at Druze and Syrian positions in the Beqaa Valley east of Beirut. This was the heaviest shore bombardment since the Korean War.[104] Firing without air spotting, the battleship had to rely on Israeli target intelligence.[105] "In a nine-hour period, the USS New Jersey fired 288 16-inch rounds, each one weighing as much as a Volkswagen Beetle. In those nine-hours, the ship consumed 40 percent of the 16-inch ammunition available in the entire European theater ... [and] in one burst of wretched excess," New Jersey seemed to be unleashing eighteen months of repressed fury.[106]

"Many Lebanese still recall the 'flying Volkswagens,' the name given to the huge shells that struck the Shouf."[107] In addition to destroying Syrian and Druze artillery and missile sites, approximately 30 of these behemoth projectiles rained down on a Syrian command post, killing the senior commanding Syrian general in Lebanon along with several of his senior officers.[108] Some of New Jersey's shells missed their intended targets and killed non-combatants, mostly Shiites and Druze.[109]

Link to comment
Share on other sites
relapse98

relapse98 634

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Maybe.  Most on the Right already put ideals on him that he didn't even believe in.  It's the speakers ideal but they want to use Ronnie to validate it.  "Ronald Reagan was 100% behind supporting Crown Prince MBS and his war in Yemen."

You're not wrong. Their hero was very anti 2nd amendment when he was governor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
relapse98

relapse98 634

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

Carter lost Iran to the mullahs and humiliated us by allowing them to keep our embassy personnel hostage for over 444 days instead of invading Iran like any other President would have. 

Us. Tee hee.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hpslugga

hpslugga 4062

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, NowThis said:

he did liberate Grenada

He didn't "liberate" jack shit. That was a 1953-Iran-style war crime and just about everyone who followed it at the time knew it. Grenada had a population of about 100K, produced a little nutmeg, no one could find it on a map, etc. They underwent a very mild social revolution, and then the twits hit the fan. They sold the action on the idea that if Moscow decided to attack Western Europe, a hostile Grenada could interdict the oil that flowed from there to Europe and we wouldn’t be able to defend our allies (paraphrasing John Vessey, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the time). It was as fictitious as was "need" of our intervention in Nicaragua on the grounds that "the Sandinistas are a two-day jeep drive away from Harlingen, TX" and in inevitably doing so were "re-writing the script from Mein Kampf." Everything Reagan did in Latin America was sold with a steaming pile of horseshit.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nivek

Nivek 16945

Posted
Posted
Not saying he won it, a lot of those policies were from the folks around him - just saying that things probably play out worse with a second Carter term, and I think Iran-Contra would pale in comparison to the shenanigans the elder Bush would have gotten us into, in 1981.   I shudder to think about some of the people the elder Bush would have had on his staff in ‘81.  

Why? Bush was more in control of his people. He also didn’t rush into Iraq like an idiot and destabilize the region. The man experienced war (was shot down, and several of his fellow pilots were cannibalized by the Japanese) and lead the CIA.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hpslugga

hpslugga 4062

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

PAAIA  like the NIAC are paid agents of the Islamic Republic and have no legitimacy. Take a look at the most popular Iranian opposition leader. #RESTART IRAN. MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN.

I'd be delighted to know exactly when this was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Incredulity

Incredulity 11675

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, ChiTownDoc said:

Yep - definitely not ok but that was 1971.  Some day people who said faggot in the 90's or used gay smears will be roasted over the coals too.  But growing up in that era I don't think all those people were bad...saying that was wrong, sure.  Guilty here, I used all those slurs through high school I'd guess.  Glad I grew up, but I hear guys still throw that around when referring to men they know are homosexual - many of these same dudes would be appalled to hear monkey when discussing black people.  The times - they change. 

Yes, but at some point we have to get to sticks and stones or we won’t have a method to verbally communicate.  I submit the pronoun mania as exhibit 1-A.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31498

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, ChiTownDoc said:

Really?  I'm assuming he was a kid in 1971 Alabama.  He probably heard it a 100x a day and said it once.  His parents properly spanked his ass.  But you're saying is is a shitty person, today?  WTF?

Twas a joke.  A very dry joke.  We need the sarcasm font on here.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GHOSTUSER

GHOSTUSER 361

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, hpslugga said:

I'd be delighted to know exactly when this was.

Cyrus the Great era. God said I will bless those that bless Israel and curse those who curse it. Absolutely no coincidence that Iran’s greatness was when Cyrus is mentioned glowingly in the Bible while now it is in a pathetic state held hostage by Islamic savages who seek to desire to destroy God’s chosen

Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 18924

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

Cyrus the Great era. God said I will bless those that bless Israel and curse those who curse it. Absolutely no coincidence that Iran’s greatness was when Cyrus is mentioned glowingly in the Bible while now it is in a pathetic state held hostage by Islamic savages who seek to desire to destroy God’s chosen

God didn't say that because there is no God and no one is chosen.

Try again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
po elvis

po elvis 2075

Posted
Posted
59 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Owning slaves made Washington a shitty human being, yes.

I bet if Washington lived today he would have no want to own slaves, whereas if Jimmy Carter lived back then he would have had slaves picking his peanuts for him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Born to Run

Born to Run 6569

Posted
Posted
God didn't say that because there is no God and no one is chosen.
Try again.
There is a God and Jesus spent the bulk of his ministry preaching against pretty much every thing Icono stands for. The New Testament is a pretty easy read too. Not as easy as Tucker's latest screed though. So team stupid it is.

He is identified to place just as someone from Birmingham or Vidor. Its curious, but what a weird dude.


Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31498

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, po elvis said:

I bet if Washington lived today he would have no want to own slaves, whereas if Jimmy Carter lived back then he would have had slaves picking his peanuts for him.

Saw something that estimated and adjusted net worth for all of the Presidents.  GW was one of, if not the, wealthiest President ever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CO Horn

CO Horn 161

Posted
Posted (edited)
22 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

Cyrus the Great era. God said I will bless those that bless Israel and curse those who curse it. Absolutely no coincidence that Iran’s greatness was when Cyrus is mentioned glowingly in the Bible while now it is in a pathetic state held hostage by Islamic savages who seek to desire to destroy God’s chosen

Wow, you’re going way, way back. And you think Hosseini is going to be the liberator of Iran?  You really are a joke!

Edited by CO Horn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RPM

RPM 26323

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Saw something that estimated and adjusted net worth for all of the Presidents.  GW was one of, if not the, wealthiest President ever.

Pfft, he could only afford wooden dentures.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChiTownDoc

ChiTownDoc 21154

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Saw something that estimated and adjusted net worth for all of the Presidents.  GW was one of, if not the, wealthiest President ever.

What a great fact someone should ask Trump about. He wouldn’t be able to help himself...he’d shit hard on GW.  

His followers would have even more diarrhea water to carry for him.  They’ll happily drink what they’re unable to carry.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89734

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Nivek said:

Why? Bush was more in control of his people. He also didn’t rush into Iraq like an idiot and destabilize the region. The man experienced war (was shot down, and several of his fellow pilots were cannibalized by the Japanese) and lead the CIA.

Yeah, just 3 years removed from that last little part, which is the problem.   

The people under him were doing this shit: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Condor

Not that things were all that better in ‘89, and we completely continued to fuck with South America in the 80s,  but I think the people he would, have had around him in ‘81 would have been a lot worse.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hpslugga

hpslugga 4062

Posted
Posted
58 minutes ago, Born to Run said:

There is a God 

 

1 hour ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

God said I will bless those that bless Israel and curse those who curse it. 

It is dishonest to assert as fact that which is either not evidently true or evidently not true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gil Bang

Gil Bang 25975

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, CO Horn said:

What US metro area has the largest Iranian population, and how much does the average home cost in that area in comparison with the rest of the US?

It is widely believed that most Iranian-Americans in the United States are clustered in the large cities of California, namely Greater Los Angeles, the San Francisco Bay Area, San Diego, Sacramento, and Fresno. According to extrapolated U.S. Census data and other independent surveys done by Iranian-Americans themselves in 2009, there were an estimated one million Iranian-Americans living in the U.S.,[62] with the largest concentration—about 300,000 people—living in the greater Los Angeles area

Iranian-Americans don't seem to engage in American Politics; the fact that only 10 percent of them voted in the 2004 election, according to surveys in large American cities, is evidence of this. The group that published this information urged Iranian-Americans to come together and vote, in order to make a difference in how the United States foreign policy operates with regards to Iran.[116]

An August 2008 Zogby International poll, commissioned by the Public Affairs Alliance of Iranian Americans, found that approximately one-half of Iranian Americans identified themselves as registered Democrats, in contrast to one in eight as Republicans and one in four as independents (2008).[102]

Iranians took over Beverly Hills over 20 years ago.  A very successful realtor that I knew in BH told me, about that time (20 years ago), that the married Jewish Doctor used to say "show me homes in the flats of Beverly Hills", and now (then) they say "show me anything but the flats of Beverly Hills".  Also, Farsi was the 1st language of most kids entering kindergarten in the BH school district around that time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhatTheBuck

WhatTheBuck 28788

Posted
Posted
20 hours ago, Asithappens said:

No shit.

Look at LBJ.

Stop applying current day codes of morality to the past. We get it. It's wrong. 

LBJ also passed the Civil Rights act and Nixon and Reagan subsequently engineered the conversion of the Republicans from the party of Lincoln to the party of the Confederacy. It's relevant to our understanding of history and how the GOP became the party for white supremacists and the Democrats became the party of diversity and equality. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lemonlime

lemonlime 5503

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, WhatTheBuck said:

LBJ also passed the Civil Rights act and Nixon and Reagan subsequently engineered the conversion of the Republicans from the party of Lincoln to the party of the Confederacy. It's relevant to our understanding of history and how the GOP became the party for white supremacists and the Democrats became the party of diversity and equality. 

This.  Also, while it's hardly surprising that old white men in the 70s were racist, I am surprised that they felt free to vocalize it, especially since at least one of them (Nixon) knew the conversation was being recorded.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
American Swindle

American Swindle 102

Posted
Posted (edited)
20 hours ago, RomaVicta said:

Lincoln changed. I guess he went so far left that he left the country.

Reagan and the GOP have not changed. They don't want to change. They're sure they're right.

How did Lincoln change? 

People tend to forget in a legal and originalist constitutional sense, Lincoln set dangerous executive precedents that have been abused by GWB and Obama.  Namely war powers that were not constitutional, he deployed troops to swing elections in the north (Delaware,) and most notably suspended habeus corpus.

 

Are you saying that since he said racist things like the below, that you are willing to forgive Lincoln because he "changed?"  

"I will say 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 between the white and black raced which I believe will forever forbid the two races from living together on terms of social and political equality.  And inasmuch as they can not 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." -Abraham Lincoln, in his 4th debate with Stephen Douglas in 1858. 

Even the Emancipation Proclamation was deemed illegal by abolitionists.  Lincoln's intent on the Proclamation was not altogether altruistic, but one to subdue the enemy (the South) at all costs. The mere fact that slavery still continued to exist in the North after the proclamation only strengthens the argument that he was a man concerned with Power more so than the perceived nobility of ending slavery.  Also, slavery didn't cease in the North until the 13th amendment was ratified. 

My original comment on Reagan and Lincoln being both racist and overrated was definitely a troll post, but you can't deny Lincoln wasn't racist.  Reagan's rhetoric, like many have cited, doesn't surprise me given the time.  I'd say it's distasteful looking back for sure, but we're all human and I'm sure he's not the only white President that's said some distasteful things.  

Given Lincoln's comments above, I'm surprised his monument is still up in Washington! 

Edited by American Swindle
Link to comment
Share on other sites
tantric superman

tantric superman 4667

Posted
Posted

A Proclamation.

Whereas, on the twenty-second day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-two, a proclamation was issued by the President of the United States, containing, among other things, the following, to wit:

 

"That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom.

"That the Executive will, on the first day of January aforesaid, by proclamation, designate the States and parts of States, if any, in which the people thereof, respectively, shall then be in rebellion against the United States; and the fact that any State, or the people thereof, shall on that day be, in good faith, represented in the Congress of the United States by members chosen thereto at elections wherein a majority of the qualified voters of such State shall have participated, shall, in the absence of strong countervailing testimony, be deemed conclusive evidence that such State, and the people thereof, are not then in rebellion against the United States."

Now, therefore I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander-in-Chief, of the Army and Navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority and government of the United States, and as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion, do, on this first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and in accordance with my purpose so to do publicly proclaimed for the full period of one hundred days, from the day first above mentioned, order and designate as the States and parts of States wherein the people thereof respectively, are this day in rebellion against the United States, the following, to wit:

 

Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, (except the Parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James Ascension, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the City of New Orleans) Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia, (except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Ann, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth), and which excepted parts, are for the present, left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued.

And by virtue of the power, and for the purpose aforesaid, I do order and declare that all persons held as slaves within said designated States, and parts of States, are, and henceforward shall be free; and that the Executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of said persons.

And I hereby enjoin upon the people so declared to be free to abstain from all violence, unless in necessary self-defence; and I recommend to them that, in all cases when allowed, they labor faithfully for reasonable wages.

And I further declare and make known, that such persons of suitable condition, will be received into the armed service of the United States to garrison forts, positions, stations, and other places, and to man vessels of all sorts in said service.

And upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of justice, warranted by the Constitution, upon military necessity, I invoke the considerate judgment of mankind, and the gracious favor of Almighty God.

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.

Done at the City of Washington, this first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty three, and of the Independence of the United States of America the eighty-seventh.

By the President: ABRAHAM LINCOLN
WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RomaVicta

RomaVicta 29932

Posted
Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Saw something that estimated and adjusted net worth for all of the Presidents.  GW was one of, if not the, wealthiest President ever.

He arranged that all of his slaves would be free under a law that required slave owners to provide for them to start a new life. His slaves were freed after the death of Martha.

If I recall correctly, Washington's fortune came from his marriage to Martha. I assume that means he acquired her family's slaves as well.

He spent a great deal of his wealth on the Continental Army. He handed supreme power back to the nation when he left office. Without Washington, there is no America as we know it.

Washington was great man and one of the most admired men in the world. He loved farming and trying innovations. He famously bred jackasses. He was a gentleman farmer who got his hands dirty.

It's a shame that we've reduced him to a marble statue or that grim-faced painting. In my mind, no one compared to Washington until my recent reading about Lincoln. Such truly great men. Admirable in just about every aspect of their lives.

Washington risked everything in the revolution. He easily could have ended up on a gallows. Lincoln was murdered for saving the Union. 

Forgive me for the muse, but there actually have been great, good men.

Edited by RomaVicta
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 18924

Posted
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

He arranged that all of his slaves would be free under a law that required slave owners provide for them to start a new life. His slaves were freed after the death of Martha.

If I recall correctly, Washington's fortune came from his marriage to Martha. I assume that means he acquired her family's slaves as well.

https://www.history.com/news/did-george-washington-really-free-mount-vernons-slaves

By the time George died, he owned 123 slaves outright. After Washington’s death, Martha freed just one: William Lee, a Revolutionary War celebrity who was the only slave George said should be immediately given his freedom. But she didn’t free the others—until she became convinced that they were plotting against her.

After at least one fire and a rumor that a slave wanted to poison her, she freed the rest of George’s slaves about a year after his death. It was just too risky to keep “restive” slaves who longed for freedom among her dower slaves, she implied to friends like Abigail Adams.

But was that really the reason? Historian Marie Jenkins Schwartz suggests that Martha’s real motivation was financial and that she felt taking care of her husband’s slaves was leeching money from her children’s estate. Either way, freeing George’s slaves wasn’t as complicated as the president implied in his will. In January 1801, they left Mount Vernon as free men and women.

Martha’s 153 dower slaves weren’t so lucky. They were divvied up between her children when she died in 1802. None of Martha’s children freed more than a few of the slaves or their children during their lifetimes. And Martha never freed the single slave she owned outright, even willing him to her grandson. George’s views on slavery may have been advanced, but his family apparently did not share them.

Edited by David Dennison
Link to comment
Share on other sites
formermav43

formermav43 4606

Posted
Posted

So a thread in 2019 about what Ronald Reagan said to Richard Nixon 50 years ago has devolved into sniping about the existence of God, debating the legacy of Washington/Lincoln, and positing an alternative timeline where Jimmy Carter runs a peanut plantation via slave labor.

Sounds about right.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 18924

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 minute ago, formermav43 said:

So a thread in 2019 about what Ronald Reagan said to Richard Nixon 50 years ago has devolved into sniping about the existence of God, debating the legacy of Washington/Lincoln, and positing an alternative timeline where Jimmy Carter runs a peanut plantation via slave labor.

Sounds about right.

Back to the issue at hand: Ronald Reagan was a racist and a shitty president. He was also a liar and a criminal who should have been impeached for Iran-Contra. 

Edited by David Dennison
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RomaVicta

RomaVicta 29932

Posted
Posted (edited)
43 minutes ago, American Swindle said:

How did Lincoln change? 

People tend to forget in a legal and originalist constitutional sense, Lincoln set dangerous executive precedents that have been abused by GWB and Obama.  Namely war powers that were not constitutional, he deployed troops to swing elections in the north (Delaware,) and most notably suspended habeus corpus.

 

Are you saying that since he said racist things like the below, that you are willing to forgive Lincoln because he "changed?"  

"I will say 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 between the white and black raced which I believe will forever forbid the two races from living together on terms of social and political equality.  And inasmuch as they can not 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." -Abraham Lincoln, in his 4th debate with Stephen Douglas in 1858. 

Even the Emancipation Proclamation was deemed illegal by abolitionists.  Lincoln's intent on the Proclamation was not altogether altruistic, but one to subdue the enemy (the South) at all costs. The mere fact that slavery still continued to exist in the North after the proclamation only strengthens the argument that he was a man concerned with Power more so than the perceived nobility of ending slavery.  Also, slavery didn't cease in the North until the 13th amendment was ratified. 

My original comment on Reagan and Lincoln being both racist and overrated was definitely a troll post, but you can't deny Lincoln wasn't racist.  Reagan's rhetoric, like many have cited, doesn't surprise me given the time.  I'd say it's distasteful looking back for sure, but we're all human and I'm sure he's not the only white President that's said some distasteful things.  

Given Lincoln's comments above, I'm surprised his monument is still up in Washington! 

Typical gotcha stuff. I recently completed A Team of Rivals. Fabulous book about Lincoln and the men of his cabinet.

Lincoln indeed shared the broad view that blacks were inferior. That had largely been ingrained across the whole country and even abolitionists included members who believed it to be true. The issue was should they be citizens. Lincoln believed yes.

As president, Lincoln's opinion of blacks changed partially because he befriended Frederick Douglas who wrote about Lincoln being a rare white man to deal with him as an equal. Lincoln often consulted Douglas and thought of him as a good friend.

Quote

Even the Emancipation Proclamation was deemed illegal by abolitionists.  Lincoln's intent on the Proclamation was not altogether altruistic, but one to subdue the enemy (the South) at all costs. The mere fact that slavery still continued to exist in the North after the proclamation only strengthens the argument that he was a man concerned with Power more so than the perceived nobility of ending slavery.  Also, slavery didn't cease in the North until the 13th amendment was ratified.

This simple explanation, I expect, probably emerged from a graduate paper. It's hopelessly shallow.

Lincoln's emancipation proclamation was part of the war effort to undermine the manpower advantage that slave labor gave the rebel army. I don't think you have a firm grasp of altruism. The move was wise and daring and well-timed. The Union needed the border states to remain in the Union. Slaves in those states were not aiding the rebel war effort. Expediency and the priority of preserving the Union dictated Lincoln's decision about the northern slave states.

Your notion of it being some sort of Power grab is abstract and unsubstantiated. If anything, Lincoln risks losing support because the North was still reluctant to say the war was about freeing the slaves. Many believed that the Union should reimburse Southerners who had to give up their slaves because they were property.

The pleasure of reading the book was getting a clearer vision of what America was like, what Americans thought, and how difficult it was to navigate the stormy waters which Lincoln did brilliantly.

Edit: Next, I will bloviate about why we should all like and admire Ben Franklin. Stay tuned to this channel!

Edited by RomaVicta
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...