Republicans Don't Want To Talk About Abe Lincoln.

Page 1 of 3 [ 33 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,399

28 Jun 2015, 9:48 am

Whenever they get nostalgic, they reminisce about the glory days when President Ronald Reagan helped bring down the Berlin Wall and dissolved the windfall profits tax. They make it sound like the Republican Party began with President Reagan and completely neglect to mention, for the most part, the greatest Republican of all time, President Lincoln. Why so shy about mentioning this great man, Republicans?



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,985
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

28 Jun 2015, 11:57 am

As a hate-filled republican, I'm not "shy" about mentioning the names of either. Both Lincoln and Reagan are yesterday's news and not on my radar screen so I don't think much about either, let alone talk about them.

Jefferson Davis was a democrat. If he were alive today I wonder how many of the more partisan dems would blindly support him only because he's not a republican.


_________________
“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”
- William F. Buckley


AspieUtah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jun 2014
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Brigham City, Utah

28 Jun 2015, 12:12 pm

Raptor wrote:
As a hate-filled republican, I'm not "shy" about mentioning the names of either. Both Lincoln and Reagan are yesterday's news and not on my radar screen so I don't think much about either, let alone talk about them.

Jefferson Davis was a democrat. If he were alive today I wonder how many of the more partisan dems would blindly support him only because he's not a republican.

Well, today's Democrats are actually talking about tearing down statues of Thomas Jefferson because he hadn't been nicer to his slaves (an institution he tried strongly to dissolve in the Declaration of Independence) by voluntarily freeing them in 1776 whereupon they would have simply been enslaved by a less-nice slave owner. But, let's think about this for a moment: Democrats want to destroy the memory of the man who single-handedly founded their political party. Doesn't that ambition define today's Democrats as piratical?

Here's a better idea for Democrats and Republicans who want to destroy their parties from within: Start your own political parties and try to make a go of it before trying to simply takeover existing successful parties. Or, is that idea too much work?


_________________
Diagnosed in 2015 with ASD Level 1 by the University of Utah Health Care Autism Spectrum Disorder Clinic using the ADOS-2 Module 4 assessment instrument [11/30] -- Screened in 2014 with ASD by using the University of Cambridge Autism Research Centre AQ (Adult) [43/50]; EQ-60 for adults [11/80]; FQ [43/135]; SQ (Adult) [130/150] self-reported screening inventories -- Assessed since 1978 with an estimated IQ [≈145] by several clinicians -- Contact on WrongPlanet.net by private message (PM)


Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,985
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

28 Jun 2015, 12:53 pm

AspieUtah wrote:
Raptor wrote:
As a hate-filled republican, I'm not "shy" about mentioning the names of either. Both Lincoln and Reagan are yesterday's news and not on my radar screen so I don't think much about either, let alone talk about them.

Jefferson Davis was a democrat. If he were alive today I wonder how many of the more partisan dems would blindly support him only because he's not a republican.

Well, today's Democrats are actually talking about tearing down statues of Thomas Jefferson because he hadn't been nicer to his slaves (an institution he tried strongly to dissolve in the Declaration of Independence) by voluntarily freeing them in 1776 whereupon they would have simply been enslaved by a less-nice slave owner. But, let's think about this for a moment: Democrats want to destroy the memory of the man who single-handedly founded their political party. Doesn't that ambition define today's Democrats as piratical?

It wouldn't surprise me too much of some wild eyed liberal wackos bombed Monticello for what they think it symbolises. They judge a man that existed in colonial / antebellum Virginia by today's standards not realizing
that 200 +/- years from now people may judge the early 21st century equally as harshly.

Quote:
Here's a better idea for Democrats and Republicans who want to destroy their parties from within: Start your own political parties and try to make a go of it before trying to simply takeover existing successful parties. Or, is that idea too much work?

I usually vote republican only because I see it as the lesser of two evils. The GOP needs a new facelift to make it more appealing to a younger 21st century electorate. The democrats could easily win over many more voters by swiftly booting gun control off of thier platform and for good.

I'm not holding my breath for either since I know there are too many stodgy rich old farts with thier talons sunk too deeply into the republican party and too many wild eyed communists and simpletons embedded in the democratic party.


_________________
“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”
- William F. Buckley


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 40,576
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

28 Jun 2015, 2:22 pm

The states rights based political philosophy - and unfortunately the white supremacy that had latched onto it - exemplified by Jefferson Davis and his cronies fit in more with what would be termed conservative politics. Political parties are hardly static, and in fact are constantly morphing. That's why the conservative Democrats of old were later replaced by liberals who realized a strong government was needed to redress abuses done to the vulnerable in the name of states rights. Just as the Republicans, once the party of strong central government that had freed millions of human beings, has in more recent times become the home of states rightsers, and with them, those who feel it's no one else' business but theirs if they want to disenfranchise an unpopular minority in their state.
That's why conservatives don't embrace Lincoln. Despite having been the first Republican President, he would have hardly fit in with the conservatives who had taken over his party today.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


AspieUtah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jun 2014
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Brigham City, Utah

28 Jun 2015, 2:48 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
The states rights based political philosophy - and unfortunately the white supremacy that had latched onto it - exemplified by Jefferson Davis and his cronies fit in more with what would be termed conservative politics. Political parties are hardly static, and in fact are constantly morphing. That's why the conservative Democrats of old were later replaced by liberals who realized a strong government was needed to redress abuses done to the vulnerable in the name of states rights. Just as the Republicans, once the party of strong central government that had freed millions of human beings, has in more recent times become the home of states rightsers, and with them, those who feel it's no one else' business but theirs if they want to disenfranchise an unpopular minority in their state.
That's why conservatives don't embrace Lincoln. Despite having been the first Republican President, he would have hardly fit in with the conservatives who had taken over his party today.

"States' rights" was the Tenth Amendment authority of states like California, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington to chose to adopt laws providing for the marriage of same-sex couples despite what the federal government attempted to do otherwise. In fact, the very first state to adopt marriage equality, Massachusetts, based its court strategy almost entirely on the states' rights protection in the Tenth Amendment. So, to dismiss the states' rights idea is a mistake. It is a big deal in how states may do good (and, sometimes, bad). I will accept the bad that it might do as the price paid for the good it has done already. Let's not castigate what worked.


_________________
Diagnosed in 2015 with ASD Level 1 by the University of Utah Health Care Autism Spectrum Disorder Clinic using the ADOS-2 Module 4 assessment instrument [11/30] -- Screened in 2014 with ASD by using the University of Cambridge Autism Research Centre AQ (Adult) [43/50]; EQ-60 for adults [11/80]; FQ [43/135]; SQ (Adult) [130/150] self-reported screening inventories -- Assessed since 1978 with an estimated IQ [≈145] by several clinicians -- Contact on WrongPlanet.net by private message (PM)


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 40,576
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

28 Jun 2015, 2:56 pm

AspieUtah wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
The states rights based political philosophy - and unfortunately the white supremacy that had latched onto it - exemplified by Jefferson Davis and his cronies fit in more with what would be termed conservative politics. Political parties are hardly static, and in fact are constantly morphing. That's why the conservative Democrats of old were later replaced by liberals who realized a strong government was needed to redress abuses done to the vulnerable in the name of states rights. Just as the Republicans, once the party of strong central government that had freed millions of human beings, has in more recent times become the home of states rightsers, and with them, those who feel it's no one else' business but theirs if they want to disenfranchise an unpopular minority in their state.
That's why conservatives don't embrace Lincoln. Despite having been the first Republican President, he would have hardly fit in with the conservatives who had taken over his party today.

"States' rights" was the Tenth Amendment authority of states like California, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington to chose to adopt laws providing for the marriage of same-sex couples despite what the federal government attempted to do otherwise. In fact, the very first state to adopt marriage equality, Massachusetts, based its court strategy almost entirely on the states' rights protection in the Tenth Amendment. So, to dismiss the states' rights idea is a mistake. It is a big deal in how states may do good (and, sometimes, bad). I will accept the bad that it might do as the price paid for the good it has done already. Let's not castigate what worked.


I never said states rights are necessarily a bad thing; just when they are used to restrict who you can marry, or if you can vote, or even eat where you want, which is when the feds have to step in.
And I am very familiar with the legalization of gay marriage here in Washington state, as I had volunteered my time for that cause, and had voted yes for it.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


xenocity
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Dec 2014
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,280
Location: Metro Detroit Michigan

28 Jun 2015, 4:51 pm

Essentially it is this:

Lincoln was a progressive liberal northerner; who freed the slaves, restricted states rights, used government to force equality in society, brought many new regulations into being, created the IRS, was the force behind the 13th, 14th, 15th, and lead to the 16th amendment (income tax) becoming law, he also signed the first income tax into being, put the South under federal military rule, and other stuff.

Today's Republicans on the other hand were so desperate to win elections and topple the ever increase voting share for Democrats.
They made it their mission to appeal to the bible belt and the Deep South after LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 on July 2nd 1964, in which the Democrats betrayed the Solid South in favor of Civil Rights.
This single act lead to the Deep South/Solid South and bible belt becoming the core of Republican Party, which allowed the Republicans to win the election of 1968, leading to Nixon's Administration.

This realigned the political system in which Democrats became the centrist/liberal/progressive party and Republicans became the right/religious/conservative party.

Then in 2010 elections, the Republican Party became the far right/extreme religious an conservative with huge voter backlash against the BLACK president and the rise of the Tea Party!

To this day Speaker Boehner cannot control his caucus in the House to get most bills through.
This is also the same reason why the Republicans cannot nominate a truly moderate candidate for president (the party base won't vote for them in primary season).


_________________
Something.... Weird... Something...


techstepgenr8tion
SomeRandomGuy
SomeRandomGuy

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 21,055
Location: The 27th Path of Peh.

28 Jun 2015, 6:15 pm

I suppose most people don't want to imply that they're old enough to remember him (add proverbial bad-teeth smily that WP doesn't have).


_________________
"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. To be your own man is a hard business. If you try it, you'll be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privelege of owning yourself" - Rudyard Kipling


ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,399

28 Jun 2015, 8:59 pm

I made a post earlier about how many problems would have been avoided if Jefferson abolished slavery but ended up not posting it because of possible misinterpretation.



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 21,957
Location: temperate zone

29 Jun 2015, 5:09 am

Since the 1990's the backbone of the modern GOP has been White Southerners.

Lincoln is famous for winning "the war of Northern Aggression" against the White South.

Since the 1990's it DOES seem as if you dont hear the GOP as loudly proclaim itself as being the "party of Lincoln" as much as you used to.

Coincidence?



ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,399

29 Jun 2015, 8:17 am

naturalplastic wrote:
Since the 1990's the backbone of the modern GOP has been White Southerners.

Lincoln is famous for winning "the war of Northern Aggression" against the White South.

Since the 1990's it DOES seem as if you dont hear the GOP as loudly proclaim itself as being the "party of Lincoln" as much as you used to.

Coincidence?



You posted what needed to be posted. Congrats.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 40,576
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

29 Jun 2015, 10:05 am

naturalplastic wrote:
Since the 1990's the backbone of the modern GOP has been White Southerners.

Lincoln is famous for winning "the war of Northern Aggression" against the White South.

Since the 1990's it DOES seem as if you dont hear the GOP as loudly proclaim itself as being the "party of Lincoln" as much as you used to.

Coincidence?


Not just that, but plenty of conservatives have been damning Lincoln, and taking the side of the Confederacy, calling the war one of "states rights."


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,367
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

29 Jun 2015, 11:03 am

Lincoln was not a good man, he wasn't some dedicated abolitionist crusader and wasn't even personally opposed to the institution of slavery and you can look up the extensive amount of proof there is to back this up. He was more a power hungry despot who launched a war against the American people without consulting congress that end in the deaths of 600,000 people. Every other country had abolished slavery peacefully so why was war necessary in the US? He suspended habeas corpus, instituted a military draft, had concentration camps that would make Hitler blush, eliminated the right to free speech and a free press, Lincoln even had a member of congress from Ohio deported across enemy lines for opposing the war. He regularly made use of thuggish tactics like this to intimidate anyone that dare oppose his autocratic rule and much of this was directed at Northern citizens of which Lincoln imprisoned tens of thousands for not being loyal to his war effort. This is all without mentioning that the way in which the Union waged the war would be considered a war crime by all if only they fought under a different flag and time, they targeted civilian populations and burned entire cities to the ground. The deification of Lincoln only holds itself to one purpose, to justify and normalize the transformation of American as a constitutional republic into tyrannical state in which there is only the illusion of rights or democracy.



ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,399

29 Jun 2015, 11:07 am

Jacoby wrote:
Lincoln was not a good man, he wasn't some dedicated abolitionist crusader and wasn't even personally opposed to the institution of slavery and you can look up the extensive amount of proof there is to back this up. He was more a power hungry despot who launched a war against the American people without consulting congress that end in the deaths of 600,000 people. Every other country had abolished slavery peacefully so why was war necessary in the US? He suspended habeas corpus, instituted a military draft, had concentration camps that would make Hitler blush, eliminated the right to free speech and a free press, Lincoln even had a member of congress from Ohio deported across enemy lines for opposing the war. He regularly made use of thuggish tactics like this to intimidate anyone that dare oppose his autocratic rule and much of this was directed at Northern citizens of which Lincoln imprisoned tens of thousands for not being loyal to his war effort. This is all without mentioning that the way in which the Union waged the war would be considered a war crime by all if only they fought under a different flag and time, they targeted civilian populations and burned entire cities to the ground. The deification of Lincoln only holds itself to one purpose, to justify and normalize the transformation of American as a constitutional republic into tyrannical state in which there is only the illusion of rights or democracy.



It's an ugly side of history you rarely see or read about.

You mention ending slavery peacefully - let's look at efforts to do just that -

Quote:
At the time of the American Revolution, Jefferson was actively involved in legislation that he hoped would result in slavery’s abolition. In 1778, he drafted a Virginia law that prohibited the importation of enslaved Africans. In 1784, he proposed an ordinance that would ban slavery in the Northwest territories. But Jefferson always maintained that the decision to emancipate slaves would have to be part of a democratic process; abolition would be stymied until slaveowners consented to free their human property together in a large-scale act of emancipation. To Jefferson, it was anti-democratic and contrary to the principles of the American Revolution for the federal government to enact abolition or for only a few planters to free their slaves.


http://www.monticello.org/site/plantati ... nd-slavery


Nowadays we have so much media, it's far easier to fight injustice peacefully but what about during Lincoln's time? No Fox News or CNN telling them how to think!