 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Party of Lincoln
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Bobert Date: 24 Jul 10 - 08:41 AM Oh yeah, Greg... John Calhoun was a redneck of the highest order... But he was not alone... Yeah, I very much do blame the leaders in the South fir continuing to preech hatred... They're still very much at it except hatred has been codified but everyone knows the code (wink, wink) including black folk livin' in the South... Actually, IMHO, the black folk have adapted alot better than Redneck Nation... They understand that "can't we all just get along" stuff where Redneck Nation doesn't want to get along and is proud of it... I mean, they have their heros who also don't want to get along.... You know, like the Stroker Aces and the Hank William Juniors... "We say grace and we say mam and if you ain't into that we don't give a damned"... Plus they have their very own publicly broaqdcast hate chalnnel in FOX so there is really no pressures being put on them to behave like real human beings... I see it every day... I am completely surrounded by these folks... They don't give a second thought to referring to black folks as niggers... I mean, not a second thought... And if someone pointed it out to them they'd go "Huh???"... As for Lincoln, I will admit that he grew into the job but that was after he bungled things to the point where the nation was at war with itself... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Greg F. Date: 24 Jul 10 - 08:04 AM I do know that the Civil War was one fucked up deal... Any arguments there??? None. And I will gladly check out that book if you can remember tha author. I'm not saying that Lincoln was a saint or a demigod- just that we need to stick with the facts. He wasn't some evil south-hating dictator, either. He was a man placed in a VERY difficult situation and, overall, he made more than a good job out of it. Sorry, Kent, but you argument doesn't hold water.It didn't take a war to end slavery in New York because its economy & society wasn't based on chattel slavery, and Blacks were only a tiny percentage of the population. There's nothing to indicate the South would have "eventually" - whatever that means- voluntarily given up slavery at home or their demands that it be extended country-wide. the Emancipation Proclamation involved the freeing of slaves in confederate states... Go figure??? Easy. Once word got out, the many thousands of "Contrabands" that flocked into Union Lines deprived the Confederacy of that much labor. Plus, a good number of 'em ended up carrying muskets in the Union Army. Pretty clever dude, Old Abe. ...resentment that is still very part of the mindset of a lot of Southerners even today.... It is hatred... Southerners might want to direct some - if not all?- of that resentment and hatred at the Southern politicians & plantation aristocracy that together dragged them, over a 40 year ramp-up, into an idiotic war. Its instructive to read the speeches of John C. Calhoun & his ilk in Congress- the man comes off like Glenn Beck. And the Southern Newspapers of the time- the Richmond Examiner, perhaps, or the Charleston Mercury, etc.- make Fox News look like Ed Murrow. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: GUEST,Riginslinger Date: 24 Jul 10 - 07:29 AM Yeah, that's right Bobert. The Republicans ended up with a bunch of Dixiecrats who are helping to elect Democrats in other parts of the country now. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Bobert Date: 24 Jul 10 - 07:05 AM Actually, to be historically accurate it was Lyndon Johnson who started the "Southern Strategy" with his pushing the "Civil Rights Act"... Afterwards he said that in doing so the Democratic Party would be dead in the South for decades to come... So Lyndon put the "Southern Strategy" on the fewnce and all the Repubs had to do was open their eyes to the gift that Lyndon had all but gift-wrapped for them... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: kendall Date: 24 Jul 10 - 06:48 AM "Stereotypes offer us the luxury of not thinking; then, they will extract the PRICE of our not thinking." (Stranger in two worlds author, Jean Harris) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: LadyJean Date: 24 Jul 10 - 12:12 AM THE MAN WHO PUT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IN THE TOILET, RICHARD BLOODY MILLHOUSE NIXON, WAS FROM CALIFORNIA!!!! IT WAS HIS "SOUTHERN STRATEGY THAT STARTED THIS MESS." HIS STRATEGY WASN'T ABOUT THE SOUTH, OR THE NORTH, OR THE MIDWEST, OR THE CALIFORNIA COASTLINE. IT WAS ABOUT GETTING REPUBLICANS IN POWER AND KEEPING THEM THERE. THE S.O.B. HAS A LOT TO ANSWER FOR!!!!! For the record, I had family on both sides of the civil war. Great grandfather William B. McFall served with John Bell Hood's Texans. He came north after the war, and married Martha Ramage, whose family home had been a station on the underground railroad. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Kent Davis Date: 23 Jul 10 - 11:40 PM I'm with Bobert on this one. It didn't take an invasion to end slavery in New York or in Brazil, nor to end serfdom in Russia, nor apartheid in South Africa. I know of no reason to think that the South alone would have clung to its peculiar institution until a gun was held to its forehead. Yes, Lincoln's actions ended slavery sooner, but at fearful cost, not only during the war, but for generations to come. Having agreed with Bobert on that, I must disagree that Southern stereotypes are somehow not really stereotypes because they are sometimes accurate. OF COURSE they are sometimes accurate. Stereotypes arise when an accurate observation is over-generalized, when a trait found in SOME members of a group is treated as if it were found generally among the members of that group. I assure you that, in South Carolina in 1969, there were African-Americans who were lazy. The problem was that not a few white people acted as if all or most of them were lazy. That was prejudice, and pointing out a lazy African-American down at the Esso station didn't change that fact. A person who thinks that male nurses are homosexual is prejudiced, even though some male nurses are actually homosexuals. A person who thinks Jews are greedy is prejudiced, even though some Jews are actually greedy. A person who thinks Southerners are stupid is prejudiced, even though some Southerners actually are stupid. A person who thinks all Mudcatters are...you get the idea. Kent |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Bobert Date: 23 Jul 10 - 10:29 PM The twist on that, Kendall, is that the Emancipation Proclamation involved the freeing of slaves in confederate states... Go figure??? Fact is stranger than fiction... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: GUEST,kendall Date: 23 Jul 10 - 10:25 PM The southern planters were expected to give up slavery if the went into Kansas and Nebraska. That is giving up their slaves unless you need to nit pick. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Bobert Date: 23 Jul 10 - 10:15 PM BTW, I do a song now and then written by Fred Dobbs back awile and recoded by a 70's band called "Heartsfield"... The name of the song is "Drummer Boy" and there's a line in the song that goes... ...different way of livin' cross the Mason-Dixon line... Says alot about perceptions of Lincoln even today... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Bobert Date: 23 Jul 10 - 09:31 PM Might wanta read "Lincoln"... Don't remember the author, right off hand but it'll come to me and I'll post it later... Different story... Lotta ways of lookin' at stuff that happened when none of us were there... I do know that the Civil War was one fucked up deal... Any arguments there??? B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Greg F. Date: 23 Jul 10 - 09:22 PM Interersiing speculation - but only that. Speculation. Where's the evidence for any of it? Might benefit from reading Eric Foner's Recontruction (or Forever Free a.k.a. Reconstruction Light)" & Leon Litwack's Been In The Storm So Long. Doris Kerns Goodwin's "Team of Rivals" (as well as among many other fine analyses of Lincoln's admionistration)also shows the great lengths that Lincoln went to precisely to avoid war. Check 'em out. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Bobert Date: 23 Jul 10 - 07:50 PM Yeah, mouser, I am suggesting that Jim Crow was a direct result of the Civil War... Let's look at several factors here: 1. Postwar Southern whites blamed blacks (slavery) for being the the reason for a war in which Southern whites were ultimately humiliated and beaten... 2. During Reconstruction(not)/Occupation blacks were elevated to positions of authority by the "occupiers" (Union army)... 3. Black were given land that had previously been owned by whites... 4. The postwar Southern survivors weren't the brightest and the best of what the Sotuh had prior of the war... Thuslym the South was populated with the snaggle-tooths who just didn't have a knowledge base to figure out "what's next for Us"... Still is in many ways... 5. The entire master/slave relationship which had survived for 250 was abruptly over throwing Southern whites into unknown territory... I mean, one has to keep in mind that the South was decimated, humiliated, burned, degregated and beaten down from the lose of the war and the subsequent 11 year occupation so when the occupiers left in early 1877 there were one shit load of very angry white Southerners... So here is my treatise... Had the war not occured here's how I think things would/could have played out... The South was very dependent on the industrial North and trade would have continued between the USA and the CSA... The abolitionist movement in the North, which had been gaining momentum, would have brought about an end to slaver by 1870... With that momentum and the pressures from the South's main European trading partners, the English and the French, the abolitionist movement would have brought about a fiercly fought out battle in the CSA Seanate to end slavery in the early 1890's with some kind of "share cropping" arrangement between plantation owners and their slaves... The operative word here is "agreement"... These things would have occured... Maybe not on the exact time table I have laid out but they would have happened... And had these changes evolved an un-necessary and bloody war would have been averted, the South would not have been so humiliated and decimated leaving it's white survivors so hate filled... That hate, which fueled Jim Crow back then and the Tea Party today, has been passed down from generation to generation in the South... The hatred hasn't subsided for way too many Southern whites... So, this is my treatise... It isn't something that just popped into my head... I have thought off and on about this purdy much all my life... Yeah, it might have meant that USA and the CSA never would have reconciled but if there is one event in out history that I could change it would have been for Lincoln to have been the truelu great mand that many think he is and gone the extra mile to not allow that war to occur... I could live with a CSA that isn't consumed with hatred alot easier that what I see today in the South... This from a Southern born and Southern raised hillbilly... And ya'll know what??? You can make any arguments you want but you can't disprove this treatise... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Greg F. Date: 23 Jul 10 - 06:04 PM Probably on the same basis as the contention that the Civil War was fought over "States' Rights". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: mousethief Date: 23 Jul 10 - 05:58 PM Are you saying that if slavery had ended without the Civil War, there would not have been Jim Crow? On what do you base that astounding claim? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Greg F. Date: 23 Jul 10 - 05:57 PM What the north wanted the south to do was to give up their most valuable assets. Slaves. No, exactly wrong. You've bought into the Lost Cause fairy-tale. What was at issue was NOT abolition (yes, yes, abolitionists were a bloc in the North, and some in the South as well, but a minority one that the South blew all out of proportion for propaganda purposes), but the expansion of slavery. No one was going have to "give up their most valuable assets." The South brought that on themselves when they attacked the United States. Lincoln's repeatedly and consistently stated position was that it would be unconstutional to interfere with slavery WHERE IT EXISTED. Ditto the majority of the population in the North. Best review U.S. history 1820-1861 & the whole issue of the expansion of slavery into the territories. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Bobert Date: 23 Jul 10 - 05:14 PM Exactly right, Kendall... That's why Lincoln shouldn't be worshiped as this great president... He had options and choose the ones that ended up being the wrong ones... Slavery was going to end... In a number of ways Jim Crow was worse than slavery becuase of the economic conditions that former slaves suffered plus the relentless hatred and terrporism of the remaining white people in the South... And in saying that I'm sure that someone is going to come along and say that ol' hillbilly supports slavery... Before anyone does I'm going on record of saying "Hell no, I don't support slavery" so don't send that dog out to hunt 'cause he ain't got no hunt in him... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: kendall Date: 23 Jul 10 - 04:47 PM Consider this. What the north wanted the south to do was to give up their most valuable assets. Slaves. How would we react if the government demanded that we give up our equity in our homes? Clearly the north forced them into a corner and they felt they had no choice but to fight. Just as Japan did when FDR froze their assets in the USA. There are plenty of "brown" sandwiches to go around. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Greg F. Date: 23 Jul 10 - 12:11 PM Precisely my point, Amos. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Amos Date: 23 Jul 10 - 11:19 AM To someone who had a minie ball or a saber blade pass through his brain from front to back, say, I would think "unpleasantness" would be the understatement of the millenium... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Greg F. Date: 23 Jul 10 - 10:42 AM Yup, they've been perpetuating that fairy-tale since 1861. Well, actually, if you check the debates in Congress, since about 1820. They also call it, or did until very recently, "The Late Unpleasantness". Denial can be a wondrous thing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: kendall Date: 23 Jul 10 - 09:02 AM Thats what they call it down south. I should have indicated tongue in cheek. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Greg F. Date: 23 Jul 10 - 09:00 AM That's "War of Northern Aggression" in quotes, Kendall, since it was anything but. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: kendall Date: 23 Jul 10 - 09:00 AM And the rest of the story...two serious mistakes were made. The south didn't believe that Lincoln could be elected, and the North didn't believe that the South would leave the union if he did get elected. Both were very wrong. Lincoln couldn't deal directly with J. Davis, he was a rebel, leading an unlawful rebellion. Another major mistake on the part of the South, when the war broke out the South had ONE iron foundry,Tredegar Iron works and that was in Richmond, just a few miles from the Union line. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: kendall Date: 23 Jul 10 - 08:50 AM Ok, let's get down to brass tacks here...the main reason the war to resist northern aggression went on so long is simple. Robert E. Lee was the cause of all that blood shed. If he had been on the side of the union, that war wouldn't have lasted a month. He is arguably the second greatest military leader in history. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Bobert Date: 23 Jul 10 - 08:28 AM Nah, Kent... This is the reality... Redneck reality... It ain't all that difficult to figure out the South's problems is ya' understand history... I took both semesters of Dr. Rogers (head of VCU's history department) "History of the South" when I was in college and I have lived and worked most of my life in the South... I see it daily... I'll see it again in a hour or so when I stop at Valley Exxon fir my newspaper... I mean, where I live could be the epicenter of Redneck Nation... This ain't bigotry or prejudice... Just observation coupled with a knowledge of American history, as opposed to American Mythology... Just the way things are here... People ain't got enough real education to hold them so they run on emotion... They hate the governemnt... They hate black people... They hate educated people... But, hey... The love TV wrestling, NASCAR, tatoos (the more the better)... They love bigass wheels and tires on their trucks which make their trucks unstable endangerin' everyone on the road... They love tobacco... I mean, let's get real hear... We have some very dumbed down white peopole in the South and guess what... They are "proud" of it and fir the record they want everyone to know two things: 1. "we want out country back" and... 2. hope the 88 car wins on Sunday B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Kent Davis Date: 22 Jul 10 - 08:55 PM If I understand you correctly, Messrs. Bobert, Greg F., Donuel, and mousethief, your thoughts on the ***** and ********** people could be summarized as follows: "A lot of folk don't understand the resentment that is still very much part of the mindset of a lot of ****** even today.... It is hatred... It has been passed down from generation to generation and generally shows up as hatred ...******* have been in denial for over a century and a half. Way past time to get over it...****** doesn't give a danged about education so that lots of ***** folks have no real job skills...They're a net money drain on the Federal government...I'm sure there are good people... But they are in the minority and seem helpless to change things...I've read where child-bearing-aged ***** women who needed kids to help run the farms hooked up with some real snaggle-tooth (think lower end of the gene pool) in order to get pregnant..." Isn't that a fair description of ****** people? It's not bigotry or prejudice, but the simple unvarnished truth about those *****, right? Your description of ****** seems oddly familiar. Now where have I heard people use that sort of language to describe those who are different from them? It was so long ago now...forty years perhaps....and it seems there were palmetto trees... Kent |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Bobert Date: 22 Jul 10 - 06:29 PM There are alot of good people, mouser, who probably are as disgusted by the majorities in their respective states... Might of fact, I know alot of Southerners who are embarassed by their fellow Southerners... POne thing that did occur during the Civil War (which it wasn't) was that the most educated and most enlightened Southerners were killed or maimed in the war... That left the South without a rudder... And it hasn't found one yet... I've read where child bearing aged Southern women who nneded kids to help run the farms hooked up with some real snaggle-ttoth (think lower end of the gene pool) in order to get pregnant... This si somethin' that isn't often talked about, especially in the South but if you get beyond American Mythology that is taught in schools this was reality in the post-war South... The war wipeed out the South's best and brightest and... ...it's still suffering from that today... As fir Lincoln being blood thirsty??? Nah, just not that great at that point in his life... The Civil War could have been avaioded... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: mousethief Date: 22 Jul 10 - 04:11 PM Never miss a chance to insult the South, eh? No progress ever a cause for celebration, no gain ever noted, no credit ever due, no sin forgiven, no fault forgotten. A smirk and a dig for every occasion. They're a net money drain on the Federal government, and yet hate the idea of government spending. They consistently vote for reactionary idiots on both state and national level. I don't have a whole lot of time for the region, no. Nothing about the Civil War. It's about NOW. I'm sure there are good people there. But they are in the minority and seem helpless to change things. I'd be happy for all red states to walk. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Donuel Date: 22 Jul 10 - 02:37 PM Lincoln as a man is much less a myth when compared to George Washington. Perhaps you need to be an expert on the Civil war but most people know at least enough to realize that Lincoln was neither blood thirsty or slow to end the 6 year war. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Bobert Date: 22 Jul 10 - 12:49 PM Actaully, Lincoln could have sent Jefferson Davis a letter telling Davis of his timetable for removing troops and federal agents from the South and that would have avioded the War... And like I've said before, hey, if the South wants out then I'd say, "Don't let the door hit ya' on the way out"... The South gets way more back in federal revenues than it generates... The South is the obesity capital of the country and with that means even more federal dollars going to Medicare and Medicaid... The South, with the exception of a few population centers, doesn't give a danged about education so the lots of it's folks have no real job skills... Face it, the South has been a drain on the US going back a long, long time... And I live here... Hey, if the South pulls out then I'll sell my farm and move to Maryland... BTW, they can have West Virginia this time 'cause most folks in Wes Ginny fit in better with Redneck Nation anyway... Might of fact they can have several mid-western states taht are purdy eat up ignorant, too... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Greg F. Date: 22 Jul 10 - 09:56 AM ...the country breakin' apart and hundreds of thousands of deaths as a result... You need to take that up with John Randolph of Roanoke, Calhoun, Stephens, Davis and the rest of thate lot, Bobert. Abe had precious little to do with it, relatively speaking. He managed very well with what was handed to him. Never miss a chance to insult the North, eh Kent? No progress ever a cause for celebration, no gain ever noted, no credit ever due, no sin forgiven, no fault forgotten."The South" has been in denial for over a century and a half. Way past time to get over it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Bobert Date: 22 Jul 10 - 07:27 AM Yeah, 20/20 hindsight, it would have been better to let the CSA walk... I mean, lets get real here... Given a hundred years of Jim Crow, which was pure terror for black folks living in the South, and given the resentments from not only the human toll of the war coupled with the humilitating 12 year occupation, yeah, it would have been better to let the CSA walk... Lotta folk don't understand the resentment that is still very part of the mindset of alot of Southerners even today.... It is hatred... It has been passed down from generation to generation and generally shows up as hatred of the federal government... Yeah, it is terribly ignorant and misguided but on the other hand it is also hypocritical... Let me explain... I was a socail worker in Richmond, Va, for some 15 years and I saw alot of folks who hated the federal government on one hand but had their hands out for any federal programs they might be elegible for... That is still very much part of the Southern culture... Look at Bobby Jindal... He's mad as aHell at the feds but wants them to spend everyone's money risking dredging sand to build barrier islands... There's a reason why the feds aren't jumpin' at Jingal's demands and that is that if they use the sand (which is limited) and build the islands and then another Katrina comes along and takes the sand out into the Gulf then they have lost theor supply of available sand.... Yet Jingal is playin' the perfect victim?angry demander that I have seen in Southerners all my life... BTW, I am not speakin' as some outsider as I grew up here in Virginia and other than 20 years living just inside Wes Ginny (among folks with confederate flags on the trucks) I have spent my whole life here so I kinda seen and figured these folks out... (But Bobert, does this mena you support slavery???) Dumb argument... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Kent Davis Date: 22 Jul 10 - 12:33 AM Never miss a chance to insult the South, eh? No progress ever a cause for celebration, no gain ever noted, no credit ever due, no sin forgiven, no fault forgotten. A smirk and a dig for every occasion. Kent |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: mousethief Date: 22 Jul 10 - 12:02 AM As much as I appreciate some of the RESULTS of Lincoln's Presidency, I wonder if a truly great president couldn't have gotten the same results with less bloodshed, and without stirring up a century of resentment and backlash. It seems very unlikely. I don't think the country could have avoided the slave thing erupting into war at some point -- unless the Union simply let the slave states walk, which I think a case could be made for. I know I'd be happier now if they were their own racist little enclave. Oh wait, they are. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Kent Davis Date: 21 Jul 10 - 10:41 PM Yea!!! Bobert and I agree on something!!! As I explained, "Party of Lincoln" was NOT the title I intended. As much as I appreciate some of the RESULTS of Lincoln's Presidency, I wonder if a truly great president couldn't have gotten the same results with less bloodshed, and without stirring up a century of resentment and backlash. That backlash was still strong when I lived in South Carolina in the 1960s. The success of people such as Allen West, Charles Lollar, and Tim Scott shows the progress the South has made in the last 40 years. Kent |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Bobert Date: 21 Jul 10 - 10:15 PM What I really don't understand is this love for Lincoln... What, presiding over the country breakin' apart and hundreds of thousands of deaths as a result of it make Lincoln this great president??? I don't get it??? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Kent Davis Date: 21 Jul 10 - 10:02 PM Kendall, If by "working man", you mean "slave", and if by "land owner", you mean "slave owner", then your understanding is correct. Otherwise, if you give those terms their usual meanings, your understanding is not correct. In the 1850s, in the United States, plenty of land was available for settlement. The population density was low. There was no need to free the working man (except for slaves) from the clutches of land owners, whether greedy or otherwise. The working man was likely to be a landowner himself or, if not, could become one. For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preemption_Act_of_1841 However, I agree with you that the title of this thread is not ideal. You may have noticed that the title of my first post is "Southerners and Republicans". That was supposed to be the title of the thread. "Party of Lincoln" was, I thought, edited out before I posted. Obviously I did something wrong. I do not know how to change it now. Sorry. Kent |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: mousethief Date: 21 Jul 10 - 04:31 PM Awesome bumper sticker. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: kendall Date: 21 Jul 10 - 03:59 PM I agree. Perfect. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Donuel Date: 21 Jul 10 - 12:04 PM Greg, Its my Party... great post! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: GUEST,Riginslinger Date: 21 Jul 10 - 07:44 AM ...republican party is a spin off from the the Whigs, and it was created to free the working man from the clutches of the greedy land owner. What happened?... The Whigs couldn't take a position on slavery, just like the Democrats and the Republicans can't take a position on immigration. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Greg F. Date: 21 Jul 10 - 07:10 AM Best bumper sticker I've seen in a long while has a picture of Old Abe, with the words "Its my Party, and I'll cry if I want to". The clowns that go on about the present Republican Party as "The Party Of Lincoln" and/or "The Party of Teddy Roosevelt" simply show how abysmally ignorant they are of what either man stood for. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: kendall Date: 21 Jul 10 - 06:10 AM As I understand it, the republican party is a spin off from the the Whigs, and it was created to free the working man from the clutches of the greedy land owner. What happened? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Ebbie Date: 20 Jul 10 - 11:47 PM Hmmm. I don't see the problem, as shown in those videos. Their views are not the same as mine but they are not promoting or instigating hatred or violence. Differences of opinion in themselves are not scary. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Kent Davis Date: 20 Jul 10 - 11:42 PM Hello, Alice, When I growing up in South Carolina, government enforced segregation. Seems to me we've come a long way. I imagine Lincoln would be most proud...but I guess there's no day so bright that someone can't find a shadow. Kent |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Alice Date: 20 Jul 10 - 11:20 PM Lincoln must be spinning in his grave. |
|
Subject: BS: Southerners and Republicans From: Kent Davis Date: 20 Jul 10 - 11:06 PM Some interesting candidates this year: Allen West, Florida, 22nd Congressional District http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEGXylIGMA0 Charles Lollar, Maryland, 5th Congressional District http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5jb3Ov7SUM Tim Scott, South Carolina, 1st Congressional District http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1maoCWNTRk&feature=related Kent |
