Somebody tell Obama that Lincoln freed the slaves

fossten

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
12,460
Reaction score
6
Location
Louisville
Hat tip to Sweetness and Light:

3012080772_b556a54351_o.png

“Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year.”

Someone should tell Mr. Obama that Mr. Lincoln freed the slaves.

While they are at it, they should also tell this Constitutional scholar that the Constitution now forbids involuntary servitude:

Amendment XIII
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.


Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

The Republican Party got rid of slavery 143 years (and a bloody Civil War) ago.

And the Democrats have been working ever since to bring it back.

Update!

It should be noted that when this “service” program was mention during the campaign it sounded quite “voluntary.”

Indeed, there was even a financial incentive promised.

3011073577_2ba9db03df_o.png

“Obama and Biden will set a goal that all middle and high school students do 50 hours of community service a year, and will establish a new tax credit that is worth $4,000 a year in exchange for 100 hours of public service a year.”

What a difference an election makes.

Update!

Hilariously, the Change.gov “Service” page has now been changed:
3012102122_10c976ff1e_o.png

Suddenly, all mention of “required” has been disappeared. And the college tuition incentive has been added.

Maybe this is what they mean by “change.”
 
Let me know when Obama makes a mistake, Calabrio. I guess this clear intention to violate the Constitution and institute totalitarianism is just artistic flourish, right?
 
...here's the question you have to answer,
are you trying to prove to yourself that you're right, or do you actually want to educate and convince others?

One tends to be self serving, the other might just accomplish something.
 
...here's the question you have to answer,
are you trying to prove to yourself that you're right, or do you actually want to educate and convince others?

One tends to be self serving, the other might just accomplish something.
I don't have to prove anything to anybody, least of all myself. Honestly, I'm educating others and just giving you the needle. :D

I'll stop with the latter now. ;)
 
I don't have to prove anything to anybody, least of all myself. Honestly, I'm educating others and just giving you the needle. :D

I'll stop with the latter now. ;)

It's just that I don't think that you're going to succeed in educating anyone if they stop listening...
 
It's just that I don't think that you're going to succeed in educating anyone if they stop listening...
I don't have any illusions that any of the posters here will change their minds anyway. It's the lurkers I'm counting on, and the PMs I get validate my posts.

And quit lecturing me. We've got bigger fish to fry, and I'm not going to play nicey nicey with these people. This is a war, and I'm fighting. You can play the appeasement game if you want to, just as long as you're aware how far that's gotten us over the last 8 years.
 
Actually Lincoln didn't free the slaves. He only made a proclamation that declared all slaves in the southern states were hereby freed. Of course, this was at a time when the south had already declared themselves to be a separate country, so Lincoln really had no authority over them at all, and even after the emancipation proclamation, slavery was still legal in some of the northern states, so when you get down to it, the emancipation proclamation was nothing more than a PR move. Slavery was only abolished after Lincoln was already dead.

Aside from that though, I do agree with the sentiment. I'll be damned if anyone's going to force me to work for them.
 
I don't have any illusions that any of the posters here will change their minds anyway. It's the lurkers I'm counting on, and the PMs I get validate my posts.

And quit lecturing me. We've got bigger fish to fry, and I'm not going to play nicey nicey with these people. This is a war, and I'm fighting. You can play the appeasement game if you want to, just as long as you're aware how far that's gotten us over the last 8 years.

I've never been in support of the appeasement game.

I'm sure we get similar PMs validating our opinions. But this is a new campaign. The 52% of the people who voted for Obama did so based on insecurity. If you assault them right now, they will be sent back to defensively defend their position. Give it a little space. Let the stories play out a little more.

In the meantime, I'd rather pound on the unpopular Democrat Congress to vent.

And if this is war, you have to use strategy and tactics.
You don't just fire off all your ammunition because you heard a twig break on the horizon. But, ultimately, this is politics, not war- so it's ultimately about persuasion. Even around here, most of the people aren't ideologically left. Most of the country isn't.

-side note: this is the last round of responses I intend to make on this disagreement for now. --
 
But, ultimately, this is politics, not war- so it's ultimately about persuasion.
Wrong. And your thinking is why we may lose.

I fought against the socialists when I was in the Army. My Dad fought them for 20 years in the Air Force. And now we've been taken over by them. If you don't think this is a war for our country, you're extremely naive.
 
Stinging Talk About Obama? Never Mind Now

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/09/us/politics/09memo.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

By JIM RUTENBERG
Published: November 8, 2008
That whole anti-American, friend-to-the-terrorists thing about President-elect Barack Obama? Never mind.

Just a few weeks ago, at the height of the campaign, Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota told Chris Matthews of MSNBC that, when it came to Mr. Obama, “I’m very concerned that he may have anti-American views.”

But there she was on Wednesday, after narrowly escaping defeat because of those comments, saying she was “extremely grateful that we have an African-American who has won this year.” Ms. Bachmann, a Republican, called Mr. Obama’s victory, which included her state, “a tremendous signal we sent.”
And it was not too long ago that Senator John McCain’s running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska, accused Mr. Obama of “palling around with terrorists.”
But she took an entirely different tone on Thursday, when she chastised reporters for asking her questions about her war with some staff members in the McCain campaign at such a heady time. “Barack Obama has been elected president,” Ms. Palin said. “Let us, let us — let him — be able to kind of savor this moment, one, and not let the pettiness of maybe internal workings of the campaign erode any of the recognition of this historic moment that we’re in. And God bless Barack Obama and his beautiful family.”
There is a great tradition of paint-peeling political hyperbole during presidential campaign years. And there is an equally great tradition of backing off from it all afterward, though with varying degrees of deftness.
But given the intensity of some of the charges that have been made in the past few months, and the historic nature of Mr. Obama’s election, the exercise this year has been particularly whiplash-inducing, with its extreme before-and-after contrasts.
The shift in tone follows the magnanimous concession speech from Mr. McCain, of Arizona, who referred to Mr. Obama’s victory Tuesday night as “a historic election” and hailed the “special pride” it held for African-Americans. That led the vice president-elect, Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., to get into the act. During the campaign, Mr. Biden said he no longer recognized Mr. McCain, an old friend. Now, he says, “We’re still friends.” President Bush, in turn, also hailed Mr. Obama’s victory, saying his arrival at the White House would be “a stirring sight.”
Whether it all heralds a new era of cooperation in Washington remains to be seen, and it may be downright doubtful. But for now, at least, it would seem to be part of an apparent rush to join what has emerged as a real moment in American history.
The presidential historian Doris Kearns Goodwin said she was hard-pressed to find a similar moment when the tone had changed so drastically, and so quickly, among so many people of such prominence.
“I don’t think that’s happened very often,” Ms. Goodwin said. “The best answer I can give you is they don’t want to be on the wrong side of history, and they recognize how the country saw this election, and how people feel that they’re living in a time of great historic moment.”
Others in the professional political class were not so sure. Some wondered whether simple pragmatism was the explanation.
“My experience is, it’s less an epiphany and more a political reality,” said Chris Lehane, a former Democratic strategist who worked on the presidential campaign of Al Gore. “I’m thinking they will continue in this direction so long as the polls indicate it’s a smart place to be.”
There are notable exceptions: Rush Limbaugh has given no quarter. And while his fellow conservative radio hosts Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham have noted the significance of his victory — on Wednesday, Ms. Ingraham said “Obama did make history” and “It’s not the time to vilify him” — they seem to be in line with Bill O’Reilly of Fox News. Relishing his new role in the opposition camp, Mr. O’Reilly said, “The guy is still a mystery, so our oversight will be intense.”
Some lawmakers also do not appear inclined to give up the fight. Representative John A. Boehner, the House minority leader, has already criticized Mr. Obama’s choice of Representative Rahm Emanuel, Democrat of Illinois, as his chief of staff.
But other people who opposed Mr. Obama, like Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, have good reason to try to make up with the winning ticket. As an ardent backer of Mr. McCain, Mr. Lieberman angered the Democrats, who in 2000 nominated him as their vice-presidential candidate. After losing a Democratic primary challenge in 2006 and then winning as an independent, he still continued to caucus with the Democrats.
Attending an event with Mr. McCain in York, Pa., in August, Mr. Lieberman said the race was “between one candidate, John McCain, who has always put the country first, worked across party lines to get things done, and one candidate who has not.”
As a speaker at the Republican National Convention, Mr. Lieberman went further than Democrats expected by criticizing Mr. Obama for “voting to cut off funding for our troops on the ground.” (Mr. Obama voted for bills that included plans for withdrawal from Iraq and against others that did not.)
This week Mr. Lieberman, who has been asked by the Democratic Senate leadership to consider giving up his position as the chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, released a statement congratulating Mr. Obama for “his historic and impressive victory.” It continued, “The American people are a people of extraordinary fairness.”
Marshall Wittmann, a spokesman for Mr. Lieberman, said that as far as the senator was concerned, “It’s over, and it’s genuinely time to find unity and move forward behind the new president.”
And what about that whole bit about Mr. Obama not always putting his country first? “He believes that President-elect Obama — and, then, Senator Obama — is a genuine patriot and loves his country,” Mr. Wittmann said. “The only point he was making in his campaign was about partisanship.”
Mr. Obama is apparently ready to bury the hatchet with his new fans. “President-elect Obama has made it clear that he wants to put partisanship behind and work together to solve the many challenges confronting the country,” said Stephanie Cutter, a spokeswoman for the Obama transition team. “We’re pleased that others do as well.”
Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Senate majority leader who will help decide Mr. Lieberman’s committee assignment, sounded less ready to forgive, at least when it came Mr. Lieberman’s support for Mr. McCain. “Joe Lieberman has done something that I think was improper, wrong, and I’d like — if we weren’t on television, I’d use a stronger word of describing what he did,” he said on CNN Friday.




Ads by Googl
 
Yeah, let's all kiss the asses of the liberals in charge, then they'll be nice and let us share power, right?

NOT!
 
Five Stages Of Grief. 1. Denial and Isolation. 2. Anger. 3. Bargaining. 4. Depression. 5. Acceptance. ...

Well I don't think most of the conservatives will get to 5,
probably more like 4.

You seem to take Obama's win almost personally.
Let's wait and see what happens in the next few months.

Even Sarah said chill for now.

Soon we'll be back at it.
 
You seem to take Obama's win almost personally.
Let's wait and see what happens in the next few months.

Even Sarah said chill for now.

Soon we'll be back at it.
Considering Obama's promised to take from me and give to others who don't pay taxes, it is personal. When he goes after my right to own guns and ammo, it's personal. When he referred to anyone like me as bitterly clinging to my guns and religion, it was personal.
 
Wrong. And your thinking is why we may lose.

I fought against the socialists when I was in the Army. My Dad fought them for 20 years in the Air Force. And now we've been taken over by them. If you don't think this is a war for our country, you're extremely naive.

No, my thinking is necessary to win.
Because if you treat people who are "undecided" or uninformed like they are the enemy, they reject you.

You keep training to use war analogies, but you always forget the most important one- STRATEGY. And also winning over the population.
 
No, my thinking is necessary to win.
Because if you treat people who are "undecided" or uninformed like they are the enemy, they reject you.

You keep training to use war analogies, but you always forget the most important one- STRATEGY. And also winning over the population.
Your strategy is why we LOST, dude.

WE. LOST. BECAUSE. OF. YOUR. STRATEGY.

McCain played the "I'm above the Jeremiah Wright and Tony Rezko attacks" type of campaign, and got his clock cleaned. Sorry, but you are still stuck in the mode that if we play nice, we'll be liked. That is SO naive. The fact is that Cokehead fought a nastier campaign, and he won. And now McCain is mending fences with Harry Reid. I'm sure very soon he'll be twisting arms and leading the charge to support Cokehead's imminent Shamnesty program. Thanks, JMac! :mad: Oh, and thanks for not sticking up for Sarah when your INCOMPETENT campaign staff stabbed her in the back, Mac. REALLY CLASSY. REALLY. What a freaking jerk.

Apparently you have learned nothing from this MASSIVE defeat. If we reach across the aisle and compromise with the enemy, they don't reach back, they only take advantage.

And by the way, I never mentioned the "undecided" or the "uninformed." So you're actually raising a straw man.
 
You can't force people to accept your position. You can only help them convince themselves.

To that, I would also add that they need to be objective and honest to be convinced. When they demonstratably prove that they have no interest in being convinced or seeing reason, then you are wasting your time on them. But, at least in this forum it is still worth while to point out their dishonesty and irrationality, so that it is clear for all to see and people can evaluate their judgement and positions accordingly.
 
I'm sure that after the proper training and re-education all of this will be perfectly acceptable.
 

Members online

Back
Top