Time For a Party III
May 12th, 2008 by jacob
In the parts I & II of this series I laid into John McCain. I also explained why I thought it would be better to treat election day as an Irish Wake. Out could come the pipes, a few pints and the blarney would flow as we we watch the socialists lather up the clueless Republican Johnny ‘Boyo the Maverick’ McCain with their left wing media shillalies. We could then spend the next four years three sheets to the wind as a coping mechanism during the Obama presidency.
I got a lot of grief from some quarters saying that the Republican Party must moderate and not be so extreme. I’d rather see us show a respect for the Constitution I swore to uphold and defend when I joined the Marine Corps in 1983. Having principles is not extreme, it is called sticking to your guns. Upholding the law is not extreme, or is it? Do I need a dose of nuance from the left? Wandering about the internet I have stumbled upon a kindred spirits in the issue of the Republicans ongoing leftward meandering in the name of Wir and Hawkins. Both present interesting views on the matters. From Wir:
Republicans are denied a “meaningful opportunity to participate” in the affairs of their own political party. If you are asked to join something, anything, you expect that joining means involvement and participation. People don’t join civic or political affairs just to receive barked orders.
This is something that rings true, and Wir goes on to write …
Turnover in leadership, changing of the guard from one generation to the next is being delayed because simply turning 65 no longer means one’s getting infirm.
The trouble with this is that as the leadership becomes entrenched it becomes self serving which is why we get bridges to nowhere, and other forms of runaway spending. Wir further notes:
The GOP once the party of reform, became the party of insiders. Access to power replaced the power of ideas.
We started to try to hold on to power by any means necessary, which narrowed the differences between us and the Democrats. This is lethal for Republicans for unlike the Democrats the Republican party does not have the old guard media carrying its water. With the scandals and spending excesses the Republicans may have consigned themselves to the wilderness for a generation.
Then comes part two of this disaster, the non-conservative Republicans. Spector, Graham, Bush et all, and of course … McCain. They have shown contempt for the constituency that propelled this party to power. The Conservatives are the mainstay of the Republican party. The trouble with the economy, Iraq etc all pale in comparison to the disenchantment of conservatives with the GOP. Hawkens states:
there is one overriding problem that dwarfs all the others, a problem that few people in the leadership of the Republican Party seem to have come to grips with. That problem is that conservatives, who are the heart and soul of the Republican Party, no longer believe that the GOP has their best interests at heart.
We do not see our selves being served. So we are staying home. We stayed home in 2006, we have seen nothing to fight for. Simply voting against Obama is not enough. People need something to vote for. Hawkins continues …
does the Republican Party adequately represent conservative interests? No. Do George Bush and John McCain’s values and beliefs match up well with those of the average conservative in the Party? No, they do not. Does the machinery of the Republican Party — the RNC, the NRCC, NSCC — treat conservatives fairly and do a good job of representing conservative interests? Not at all.
This is the heart of it. The McCain-Kennedy Amnesty bill was brought up and the elites tried to stuff it down the countries’ throat, that finally tore it. Sen Graham’s calling us bigots was not helpful either. The money dried up. The approval ratings dropped even more, and the conservatives walked; most have not returned, for nothing has been done to improve matters. Some will provide an anti-Obama vote, but face it, this is small potatoes when compared to the millions of votes that will be home Nov 4. Good luck fellas, you’ll miss us.
UPDATE:
For those who insist on not getting it: When a political party has your interests you will forgive mistakes, like those made in the occupation in Iraq. When a political party does NOT have your interests, things like a downturn in the economy, which are technically NOT in your control, will hurt you. When the voter sees no gain for themselves supporting a party, then the party is finished regardless of circumstances.
This entry was posted on Monday, May 12th, 2008 at 10:15 pm and is filed under Campaign 2008, Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
May 13th, 2008 at 4:55 am
“The trouble with the economy, Iraq etc all pale in comparison to the disenchantment of conservatives with the GOP.”
I’m not sure all Americans would agree. Or isn’t that the problem with repubs? More concerned about themselves than things which affect the American people as a whole (i.e. failing economy, mis-fought war, etc.)?
I’m sure that’s not what you meant, anyways.
May 13th, 2008 at 7:22 am
Kevin,
“I’m sure that’s not what you meant, anyways.”
See the update, I spelled it out.
May 13th, 2008 at 10:07 am
jacob,
With your statement :
“I got a lot of grief from some quarters saying that the Republican Party must moderate and not be so extreme. I’d rather see us show a respect for the Constitution ”
You seem to paint with a broad stroke that conservatives and conservatives alone are keepers of respect for the principles laid out in our Constitution. Can you please tell us how and why the conservatives have become the Knights Templar of the US Constitution ?
May 13th, 2008 at 10:19 am
The more extreme the Republican party gets, the less influence it will have. Plain and simple. You can all stay “high and mighty”, that’s fine. I hope you do.
For most of the American people, it’s Dick Cheney that’s the problem, not George Bush himself (other than he let Cheney run the country for 6+ years).
You’re simply hypocrities wrapping yourselves in the flag and the bible. Keep up the good work! I foresee a day when we start a transitional period of three political parties with yours (eventually) marginalized to irrelevancy. If not, it’s just a matter of time before the U.S. is conquered. I can see all of you on your “hills” being swept away, and not seeing that YOU are actually the invaders.
May 13th, 2008 at 10:27 am
“The more extreme the Republican party gets, the less influence it will have”
This is also true for the Democrats. One cannot single out Cheney, as Cheney is to Bush what Gore was to Clinton.
May 13th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
“Can you please tell us how and why the conservatives have become the Knights Templar of the US Constitution?”
It is almost the definition of conservative. The first definition of the verb converve at dictionary.com is “to prevent injury, decay, waste, or loss.” It is the principles of the Constitution — the rights of free speech, assembly, and religion, the right to keep and bear arms, limited government with specific, enumerated powers, etc. — that we are trying to conserve.
The socialists that have infested the Democrat party do not believe in such things. McCain-Feingold is a disgraceful assault on the First Amendment, just as the Assault Weapons Ban, the ban on the import and manufacture of automatic weapons, and the Brady Bill are similarly disgraceful assaults on the Second. Damn near every bill that comes out of Congress is an assault on the Constitutional limits of federal power.
The powers of Congress are specified in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. Read it. Find in there the power for Congresss to create the Department of Education, the National Endowment for the Arts, Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, or AFDC. Find in there the power for Congress to mandate fuel economy standards, speed limits, drinking age, or one gun per month.
There is no such power.
May 13th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
I have to agree totally with Sanity? on this one. Of course I think Hilly is hot and Bore-rock is a genius of Einstien proportions. I just wish these little voice would stop talking all at once.
“You’re simply hypocrities wrapping yourselves in the flag and the bible.”
Being as how the flag is a symbol of our nation AND its constitution I would say yes, we do. Why does that make us hypocrites? And why do you hate our country as it was designed, Michele….I mean Sanity?
May 13th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Yes Jack, I am quite familiar with that document. Seems that conservatives have anointed themselves as the gatekeepers for not only morality, but if I read you correctly, constitutionality as well.
Either that, you are saying that all non-Democrats are conservative, and all non-conservatives are liberal Democrats.
You should study up on Ansel Adams’ Zone System, maybe then you will learn to appreciate the importance of the various shades of grey between black and white.
May 13th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
Sanity :
I have ten bucks that says even you don’t believe your own BS.
May 13th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Dan, what do you mean by “gatekeepers for… constitutionality”? While your at it, try to answer my other questions, too.
May 13th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Dan,
“You seem to paint with a broad stroke that conservatives and conservatives alone are keepers of respect for the principles laid out in our Constitution.”
Happy to.
Democrats, liberals, socialists etc look for Judges who see the constitution as a ‘living’ i.e. fungible document. The plain reading will not suffice, forget what all those dead white dudes said in the federalist and anti-federalist papers, we need to examine the meaning of ‘is’.
Moderate Republican, RINOs, Liberal Republicans etc play th same tune but not as often. Senator McCain put a knife into the guts of the first amendment with his idea of campaign finance law.
Fair enough? To be a conservative is to look at the original intent and plain wording of the document. Read the commentary of the time and then do not mess with it in the name of change or campaign finance or what ever other convenient excuse one can come up with in ordetr to expedite some current agenda.
May 13th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
Dan,
What is your issue? That moderates are seen as not sufficiently considerate of the document and are lumped with those who seek to actively undermine it? The only difference is the rate at which the document will be undermined. Is a slow death preferable to a quick one?
May 13th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
jacob,
And you believe that moderates do not take issue with McCain-Feingold ?
My issue is simple - why do you lump the moderates in with the nut jobs on the left ? It’s almost like you are saying that if one is not a conservative, you are a barbarian at the gate.
Article 5 does not tell us it is a living document ? This one section tells us much about the foresight of the framers, in that they understood that future brings change, and that constitutional change must be, like government itself, an expression of the free will of the people.
May 13th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
Dan,
McCain calls himself a moderate. He and the like of Spector are the face of the moderate Republicans. You don’t like it? Well that is who you are in bed with.
As for the nut jobs on the left i do not lump you in with them, I am saying that both groups have in the past warped or ignored the meaning of the words of the constitution to suit their immediate needs.
“Article 5 does not tell us it is a living document?”
Close but no cigar. You want to change the constitution, then amend it. What i am talking about is the discovery of new right in old passages, or, the angling of existing amendment to suit some current desirement. And you know it as well as I do. The document can change but the change comes from the legislature passing amendments not new laws or the bench.
May 13th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
Dan, I think what he’s saying is that if you’re for the 2nd amendment, or any other amendment (as it constitutes an “undermining” of the constitution) well, then you’re not a conservative.
Jacob, I agree with the last sentence of the update. I still disagree that the troubles of the economy or the failures in Iraq pale in comparison to the disenchantment of conservatives with the GOP. I think if you are a conservative within the GOP who is becoming more and more disenchanted, the failures in Iraq and the faltering economy might not seem very important to you. One could argue that they never really were (”we want what we want at any costs”).
The real problem is that the GOP conservatives are so narcissistic that they attempted a power grab of historic proportions for the purpose of remaining in power forever and ever, Amen. Becoming disenchanted with the GOP may feel like the end of the world to you, but I’m sorry, there are things that matter to ALL Americans (i.e. economy, ill-planned war), which need to be addressed.
I think about if I were a liberal, and I lamented that the disenchantment of the liberal from the Dem. Party was more worrisome than economic recession, $4/gal gas prices, billions of dollars in debt a day for a war that had no reason (or even enough planning to win), some might use the word “elitist”. And they’d be right. To say your worry over your poor little frustration causes the collective world’s problems to pale in comparison is kinda funny.
May 13th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
“Article 5 does not tell us it is a living document?”
No, it is not a “living document.” The Constitution does not change of its own accord, nor does its meaning change. Article V provides the means to change the COnstitution. If you want to change it, fine. Go through the process specified in Article V. Don’t just ignore the parts of the Constitution you don’t like and call it a “living document.”
May 13th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
Kevin,
“I think what he’s saying is that if you’re for the 2nd amendment, or any other amendment (as it constitutes an “undermining” of the constitution) well, then you’re not a conservative.”
Could you please restate this. I can’t even call it nonsense because it does not make enough sense to warrant so lofty an appellation.
May 13th, 2008 at 9:47 pm
Kevin,
“I agree with the last sentence of the update. I still disagree that the troubles of the economy or the failures in Iraq pale in comparison to the disenchantment of conservatives with the GOP.”
Are you being deliberately dense? Are you smoking something funny? I will break it down for you.
1. The trouble the US as a whole is having in Iraq or with its 1% growth in GDP is more important in the grand scheme of thing than the trouble that the GOP is having with its base.
2. In a nut shell, the GOP has alienated its base due to:
a. spending money like drunken sailors in a whore house
b. allowing bush to increase the federal involvement various domestic programs, we want small guv’mint
c. not enforcing immigration laws and opening the borders while forcing grandma to take her shoes off at the airport
Now for the part you keep missing …
3. Due to the alienation of the party faithful the troubles with the economy and Iraq do not get any sympathy. If the party faithful felt the party gave half a tinker darn about them then they would be charitable about the economy because a lot of what is going on is not in our control there. In short there is no goodwill toward the party so any trouble is magnified.
Why do I have to spell something that basic out to you? Have you gone stupid on me?
May 13th, 2008 at 9:52 pm
Kevin,
“The real problem is that the GOP conservatives are so narcissistic that they attempted a power grab of historic proportions for the purpose of remaining in power forever and ever, Amen.”
You mean like the Democrats liberals? Like back in 95 when they acted like someone STOLE THEIR puppy and the Republicans did not belong in power ever? Kiss off dude, this is the all time projection.
“Becoming disenchanted with the GOP may feel like the end of the world to you, but I’m sorry, there are things that matter to ALL Americans (i.e. economy, ill-planned war), which need to be addressed.”
Back to stuck on stupid. The war and the economy matter to everyone. But if the trust is lost then the people will abandon you in hard times. The times are hard, and the party has alienated its own base. Pure and simple.
May 13th, 2008 at 9:58 pm
Jacob,
I’m sorry, let’s see. . .it seemed to be that you were stating that a conservative would not think to change the Constitution and that changes to the Constitution only serve to “undermine” what the forefathers intended. But in order for that to be accurate you’d have to discount the amendments, including the so beloved #2. You and I wrote our comments at nearly the same time, I think you’ve since explained your point (judges vs. legislature).
I like the word “appellation”.
May 13th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
Jack.
“Article V provides the means to change the Constitution. If you want to change it, fine. Go through the process specified in Article V.”
This defines a living document in my book. Seems you are not getting past Clinton’s view that a “living” document means subject to the will of the sitting government. A living Constitution defines a government and amendments that are subject to the will of the people.
May 13th, 2008 at 11:04 pm
jacob,
Actually I am not in bed with McCain, I am in bed with my wife. Four years of McCain is a much less bitter pill that four or eight years of Obama.
“I am saying that both groups have in the past warped or ignored the meaning of the words of the constitution to suit their immediate needs.”
I believe you meant to say the three groups did you not ? I recall we once had a Republican President who suspended Habeas Corpus and other constitutional protections. How does the Patriot Act measure up to your statement ? The roar of the conservatives was somewhat deafening over these events wasn’t it ?
But I guess you are going to defend this by saying that Lincoln and Bush were not real conservatives.
Where in the Constitution is a sitting President given the authority to trade arms for hostages ?
May 14th, 2008 at 7:58 am
Jocob: Lincoln was a liberal as were most of the Republicans of the time. The Democrats were the “conservatives” (primarily conserving the idea that whites can enslave blacks).
Dan (#5): No, Gore didn’t run the country for 7 years. And there’s probably only about 6% of the population that would think he f-ed things up like Cheney has.
Stone (#9): I’m not sure I believe it’s realistic, but I would absolutely LOVE to see it happen.
inACTivist (#7): Wrapping oneself in the flag means taking your idea, whatever it is, and making noise like it’s in the same class as motherhood and apple pie, but, in reality, being simply self-serving. Kind of like Jack with his assault on the assault weapons ban.
I love almost everything about how the country was designed. The Founding Fathers were brilliant. The only thing major mistake they made (IMHO) was that they saw the major conflicts as between big states and small states. I don’t believe they foresaw the extreme polarizing effect of political parties. At the national level, we govern too much from the extremes, and not enough from the middle. Constitutionally, we have built-in protections from big states and small states, but there’s nothing, really, to keep the parties at bay.
It may be that once things in this country get really bad, then the adults will take over from the children. McCain and Obama are the most adult-like nominees we’ve had in a while. So maybe there’s a glimmer of hope.
May 14th, 2008 at 8:28 am
Sanity,
“love almost everything about how the country was designed. The Founding Fathers were brilliant.”
Here here!
“The only thing major mistake they made (IMHO) was that they saw the major conflicts as between big states and small states. I don’t believe they foresaw the extreme polarizing effect of political parties.”
Actually Jefferson warne against political parties as did other founding fathers.
The biggest mistake IMHO is we took the selection of Senators away from State Governments. This put Federalism on its ear.
May 14th, 2008 at 9:12 am
“Where in the Constitution is a sitting President given the authority to trade arms for hostages ?”
It isn’t done by the President but by his subordinate(s)-covertly and without knowledge, of course!
May 14th, 2008 at 9:17 am
“Article V provides the means to change the Constitution. If you want to change it, fine. Go through the process specified in Article V.”
I don’t think that it makes this a “living” document. It is just stating that the Constitution has option to keep from being a “static” work for time eternity. Interpretation is literal-not redefining “is” and can be changed, if agreed upon by the people, to facilitate current times.
May 14th, 2008 at 9:33 am
Sanity?
You whacky guy, you. Always interesting at best.
inACTivist (#7): Wrapping oneself in the flag means taking your idea, whatever it is, and making noise like it’s in the same class as motherhood and apple pie, but, in reality, being simply self-serving. Kind of like Jack with his assault on the assault weapons ban.
Not sure what you are trying to say (never are) but we “wrap” ourselves in the flag (which I interpret as the rule of law) and make noise to ENFORCE that rule of law. How is it that you liberals will never have enough laws to satisfy your needs? Example. You make a law to kill a horse. Not being happy, you make another law to quarter the horse to make sure it is dead. Then you make a law that says at least 50% of the horse must be reutilized so as (hi Jack) truly define the horse is dead. Of course this is not enough so you determine that all parts must be collected again and given to a vet coroner so that a dead horse certificate can be issued and put into a national database just in case some cat dies from eating his gourmet food, you will be able to trace the DNA from the horse meat used and find out if that was a legitamate dead horse or not.
See how ludicrous this is? If you do then you understand the workings of the liberal mind-of which you are part. Think of it as being the “borg” collective.
“I love almost everything about how the country was designed. The Founding Fathers were brilliant.”
Do you? I tend to believe this statement disingenuos by the sewage that flows forth from thy sewage hole!
May 14th, 2008 at 10:34 am
“[It] seemed to be that you were stating that a conservative would not think to change the Constitution and that changes to the Constitution only serve to ‘undermine’ what the forefathers intended.”
Not at all. The forefathers put in the mechanism to change the Constitution, so changing it via that mechanism does not undermine it. The authors of the Constitution knew they were not infallible, and so they put in the mechanism for change.
Similarly, the Amendments are also written by fallible people. Prohibition was found to be a mistake, and was repealed. Similarly, the provision that anyone born on U.S. soil is a citizen has become unworkable, and needs to change. I also believe that the 16th and 17th Amendments were mistakes. The world changes, and the Constitution should change with it — by the mechanism provided, not by just ignoring the parts we don’t like.
As for Lincoln’s suspension of Habeas Corpus, Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 states: “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”
“Where in the Constitution is a sitting President given the authority to trade arms for hostages?”
So one violation of the Constitution is justification for all?
May 14th, 2008 at 11:37 am
Jack,
“As for Lincoln’s suspension of Habeas Corpus..Cases of Rebellion or Invasion”
I did not realize that Maryland had invaded or rebelled against anyone. Thanks for clearing this up.
“So one violation of the Constitution is justification for all?”
That is not my point, and you know it..
May 14th, 2008 at 11:53 am
Dan,
No, but those same congressmen who got locked up were espousing rebellion. That sir is a crime it is called sedition. Since a rebellion was already under way elsewhere in the country, the state of emergency was already in effect.
“That is not my point, and you know it..”
Then what is your point?
May 14th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
jacob,
In April of 1861, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus in MD. It was in Sept of that same year when he arranged for the arrest of duly elected members of the MD state legislature.
Their alleged crime was an intent to participate in a meeting to discuss and possibly vote on succession. When did sedition become a crime, 1918 wasn’t it ?
Shall we also talk about the suppression of the press during this same period ?
I already told you what my point was. You forgot already ? What are you gonna do when you get my age youngster..
May 14th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
I must have missed it somewhere, Dan. Please tell us again what your point was.
May 14th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Seek and yee shall find pilgrim..
May 14th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Well, Dan, I have re-read all your comments. As far as I can tell, you have no point.
May 14th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Jack,
Oooouuuuucchh!!!
Look, Dan does have a point, no no no, not just under his hat. His point is that Reagan was a moderate like Spectar, and Lincoln was the worst president ever, and and … oh well.
May 14th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
Well, I must agree on the last point. Had Lincoln been a decent President, the Union never would have split. Furthermore, according to the American Leftist Mantra, war is NEVER necessary. Thus, Lincoln should have found a way to hold the Union together diplomatically, or he should have let the C.S.A. go without a fight.
May 14th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
Dan,
“In April of 1861, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus in MD. It was in Sept of that same year when he arranged for the arrest of duly elected members of the MD state legislature.”
If i recall there was this thing called a Civil war going on. Please refrain make the asinine statement that ‘there was nothing civil about it.’ If I also recall the constitution allows for suspension of habeas corpus when there is a rebellion, as in this case. So in short you do not have a grievance, Lincoln followed the constitution in this regard.
“Their alleged crime was an intent to participate in a meeting to discuss and possibly vote on succession. When did sedition become a crime, 1918 wasn’t it ?”
Fomenting rebellion in the time of rebellion is an act of rebellion. It is called sedition, but once a rebellion is in play the seditious act is an act of rebellion as well, and you d*mn well know this. So in this regard you also do not have a leg to stand on. Can I start calling you stumpy?
“Shall we also talk about the suppression of the press during this same period ?”
Sure. If I recall the copperhead (Democrat) press up North continued to function by and large. I am sure you can find an example of a News Paper being shut down in NY or Cleveland. If the example involves a state that seceded or tried to secede then go fly a kite.
“I already told you what my point was. You forgot already ? ”
Actually I am failing to see a point. Spell it out.
Without two legs and no point, I would say you need a beer.
May 14th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
Jack,
Lincoln did not cause the Civil War, the hot heads in SC fired on Sumter. What caused the war was Lincoln’s election. Face it, the south at that point was suffering from LDS, similar to its modern equivalent BDS. Lincoln could have allowed the country to split, but would we have been better off for it?
May 14th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
If I didn’t know better, I wouldn’t know any better. Licoln wasn’t smart enough to know better. It was the Jesuits that pushed many of his decisions and hounded him into some belief in GOD. Had he let the CSA go on its own, all would have changed in time anyway-without the hidden/hagging racism left over from force. Lincoln was a good politician and a better strategist when it came to playing people.
I don’t remember rebellion. I only remember sucession. What in the Constitution gave the right to bring arms againest fellow countrymen declaring freedom?
Stumpy?
May 14th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
jacob, get a grip dude, Lincoln’s first suspensions were in those areas that were not rebelling. Kind of like Bush we are going to start putting Iowans in Gitmo to help combat terrorism.
Since when does the First Amendment state that freedom of the press is allowed only when you print kind words about the administration ? I believe this is the primary reason for it’s being.. The papers weren’t shut down, it was more of selective Post Office delivery by executive order if memory serves me correctly. A true Knight Templar of the Constitution would really be pissed over that.
It wasn’t a rebellion, it was succession. The South did not want to take over the game, they wanted to leave it.
The North could never allow the split, as the tariff free deep water ports of the south would have killed northern commerce. When the north realized this, the seeds were sown.
I had a beer, several, that’s part of my problem today.. can’t think of anything to throw back at ACT re the moderate uncle comment.
May 14th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Don’t forget the South had all the good beaches (i.e. no drug needles washing ashore, no Tampon applicators, no Iron City beer cans rusting in the sand, etc.) and the good babes! You got to love a honey in a nice hooped dress wearing bows and ringlets. But not unlike what the Japanese have done after WWII (taking over all those same islands without firing a shot) so it is to what the Yankees have done to the Carolinas and Florida.
Of course you realize that the only reason Lincoln won was there was too much apathy and PEOPLE STAYED HOME INSTEAD OF HOLDING THEIR NOSE AND VOTING! Oops.
BTW I was actually talking about the no name inbred chucker that invited himself to our table and conversation. I would NEVER make a dig on Jacob.
May 14th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
Act,
“It was the Jesuits that pushed many of his decisions and hounded him into some belief in GOD.”
Lincoln and Jesuits? Can you site a source please? I have never have heard of this. Lincoln was self educated, and grew up in the back country, so its not like he went to catholic school.
May 14th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
Jacob,
“Kiss off dude, this is the all time projection.”
The idea that the dems cried like someone stole their puppy may be; you’ll have to forgive my ignorance as I was a registered repub then but only really paid one scintilla of attention to politics. It wouldn’t surprise me, though, that anyone interested in grabbing as much power as possible to set up a “forever” dynasty would cry like a baby when the power slips mysteriously through their fingers like sand.
In a country with a collective personality of someone with Bulimia Nervosa on Axis I and a personality disorder (probably Borderline, though I’m not fond of the current diagnostic system for personality disorders) on Axis II, what do you expect?
Next the country regurgitates you and your kind and gluttons itself on the other end of the spectrum, never happy (or even sure of) who they are.
I never understood how any conservative could argue for the Patriot Act or Unilateral War or firing attorneys who don’t prosecute the way your freakin’ POLITICAL PARTY wants them to instead of the Constitution, or. . . . . . .
If these goofballs are conservatives then conservatives need to get the f— out, for real. And now that I’ve totally digressed It appears we have come to the same conclusion.
Mwah! Kissin’ off!
May 14th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
“Of course you realize that the only reason Lincoln won was there was too much apathy and PEOPLE STAYED HOME INSTEAD OF HOLDING THEIR NOSE AND VOTING! Oops.”
Precisely my point to jacob, he defends tooth and fang the most liberal, big government, constitution infringing Republican President the US has had, and he rails against McCain. Think the guy is tip-toeing with male menopause or something, I suspect a hormonal imbalance here.
May 14th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
Dan,
Gripping hard unto reality Dan, and its you who need to get the grip.
The press in the North ripped Lincoln up one side and down the other. If he was closing the presses of those who were in open rebellion then that is prudent, if you are saying otherwise you continue to sound like some flower power yahoo who allows the enemy more rights than their own side.
“The papers weren’t shut down, it was more of selective Post Office delivery by executive order if memory serves me correctly.”
So the mail did not get delivered in NC? During a time of war? Yup, real gripping stuff their Danny boy. Trampled the constitution to mush he did.
“The North could never allow the split, as the tariff free deep water ports of the south would have killed northern commerce. When the north realized this, the seeds were sown.”
The North was far and away richer than the South. Look at the industrial base, railroad infrastructure etc. An agricultural economy is never richer than an industrial or mercantile economy. There were 22M in the north and 11M in the south 3M of whom where slaves. The economic might of the north far and away eclipsed the south’s. The war was over the right to own slaves, and the right of the individual state to determine that issue. Get a grip indeed.
May 14th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
Jacob,
I didn’t catch it when I typed it. Sorry. I meant to say Jacobins and it was only during Lincolns’ time as President that they hounded him to no end. Between Horace Greely, the Jacobins, governors and generals, I don’t know why the guy just didn’t shoot himself and be done with it.
Many (too many) documents and books to review. A good compilation, and I do mean “good”, is Shelby Foote’s 3 book narrative “The Civil War”
May 14th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
Kevin,
“Mwah! Kissin’ off!”
I love it when you talk like that.
“The idea that the dems cried like someone stole their puppy may be; you’ll have to forgive my ignorance as I was a registered repub then but only really paid one scintilla of attention to politics. ”
What a load. The Democrats threw a hissy fit that was big enough to to make the papers in London let alone here. The show West Wing even had a few monologues on the issue. Where you under a rock?
“It wouldn’t surprise me, though, that anyone interested in grabbing as much power as possible to set up a “forever” dynasty would cry like a baby when the power slips mysteriously through their fingers like sand.”
You mean like the Democrats after Clinton butt boy Gore lost in 2000?
“n a country with a collective personality of someone with Bulimia Nervosa on Axis I and a personality disorder (probably Borderline, though I’m not fond of the current diagnostic system for personality disorders) on Axis II, what do you expect?”
I get the Bulimia Nervosa part, what is Axis I and Axis II?
“Next the country regurgitates you and your kind and gluttons itself on the other end of the spectrum, never happy (or even sure of) who they are.”
This is the result of people having an encyclopedic knowledge of the ins and outs of Friends, Seinfeld and American Idol. If you don’t know better you eat junk food.
“I never understood how any conservative could argue for the Patriot Act or Unilateral War or firing attorneys who don’t prosecute the way your freakin’ POLITICAL PARTY wants them to instead of the Constitution, or. . . . . . .”
1. Patriot Act is a mess, I still think we need something to handle the terrorist threat. If not that then what?
2. Unilateral war my ass, if you want to get into that we still technically where in a state of hostility since gulf war I, Saddam was supposed to abide by the terms of the cease fire and he did not, please note all the friggin resolutions. That Rumsfeld did a McNamara impersonation that is award winning only serves to boggle the mind.
3, As for the attourneys, your are all wet, Clinton fired ALL the bastards when he took office. They serve at the PLEASURE of the president. This is fever swamp time, have you been drinking the kool aid?
“If these goofballs are conservatives then conservatives need to get the f— out, for real.”
Bucklry said they were not, as for Bush getting the f-out it will happen. As dumb as Bush is you would think your friggin party could have someone with a higher GPA to run against him.
May 14th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
Dan,
I think that Jacob is playing both sides againest everyone. While I was reading his passion, I decided to google his famile tree. He’s married to Mary Todd’s great granddaughter. You don’t think Maria keeps Arnold straight? Since you didn’t know this, I will clue you in. A Marine’s one weakness (and I do mean one) is ….women.
May 14th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
hahahahaha! #47 is a gas. J=1 K=0. Watch those veins, buddy. Retine A can’t fix ‘em.
May 14th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
ACT,
Who me, or kevin?
May 14th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
ACT,
Jacobins? You mean like the guys who supported Bonnie Prince Charley in 1745? In … Scotland? What did ol Abe do? Where a kilt?
“Shelby Foote’s 3 book narrative “The Civil War””
I read that. Awesome book.
May 14th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
“It wasn’t a rebellion, it was succession.”
Monarchies have successions. We had a secession.
May 14th, 2008 at 7:08 pm
Jacob,
#3 alone shows I wasn’t payin’ attention. And yes, I was under a rock. The Rock, in fact. All else was sinkin’ sand, if you know what I mean.
Tell me about Bulkry. . .
May 14th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
Jacob,
Besides, it would be a little grandiose to diagnose an entire country in one fell swoop. Even I’m not THAT broadminded.
MH dx’s fall, for now, along 5 Axes. Axis I is primary diagnosis (depression, bipolar, schizo), Axis II are for cognitive disorders and personality disorders, III, IV, and V other stuff. But don’t take that to mean I can diagnose, because I can’t. I only can give an “impression”. There, I think I’m legally covered now.
Don’t even get me started on this farce of a war.
August 26th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
[…] informed choice is sometimes sorrowful wisdom. I was planning to stay home and get into a pain free state. Unfortunately, it appears that the differences between the candidates with regard to overall […]