Some interesting parallels
 

On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 13:52:09 -0500, John H wrote:

On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 09:59:12 -0600, thunder wrote:

On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 07:10:08 -0500, BAR wrote:


"consumption based economy?" Please tell me you do not want us all to be
come subsistence farmers? If you do I want to live up stream from you.

No, I mean we have become an incredibly wasteful, resource intensive,
society. In the long run, it is unsustainable, especially with a couple
of billion Indians, and Chinese, wanting to be like us. I don't know
what the future of capitalism will be, but I'll wager it will be
considerably different than the laissez-faire system we have had over the
past century.

Perhaps this article in today's Washington Post is a portent of things to
come - the future you're discussing.

Read the article. The entire premise is that Obama is going to give money
away - money to pay off mortgages, for example.

http://tinyurl.com/8fb72t

Just had to fix the 'your' above.
--
* I Have a Degree in Liberal Arts; Do You Want Fries With That? *

John H

Some interesting parallels
 

Wizard of Woodstock wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 09:29:41 -0500, hk wrote:

http://s21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...n_Portrait.flv

Another liberal arts major who doesn't know or remember his college
course in American History.

"There is a physical difference between the white and black races,
which will forever forbid the two races living together upon terms of
social and political equality.'' - Abraham Lincoln - 1858.

The Civil War wasn't about slavery - it was about preserving the Union
- that above all was Lincoln's primary goal. His Emancipation
Proclamation only served those who weren't under his control - namely
the Confederacy. He didn't free slaves under his own control.

Abraham Lincoln did not believe in the equality of black people. He
did, however -- and this was no minor distinction in his era --
believe in their humanity. He also abhorred slavery. But he was
willing to countenance it if doing so would have vindicated his
primary goal: to save the Union. For him, nothing mattered more.
--


Yeah, Tom, I've seen that same crap quoted on about every right-wing
site I visit, along with commentaries telling everyone what a "bum" MLK was.

Some interesting parallels
 

On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 09:29:41 -0500, hk wrote:

http://s21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...n_Portrait.flv

Another liberal arts major who doesn't know or remember his college
course in American History.

"There is a physical difference between the white and black races,
which will forever forbid the two races living together upon terms of
social and political equality.'' - Abraham Lincoln - 1858.

The Civil War wasn't about slavery - it was about preserving the Union
- that above all was Lincoln's primary goal. His Emancipation
Proclamation only served those who weren't under his control - namely
the Confederacy. He didn't free slaves under his own control.

Abraham Lincoln did not believe in the equality of black people. He
did, however -- and this was no minor distinction in his era --
believe in their humanity. He also abhorred slavery. But he was
willing to countenance it if doing so would have vindicated his
primary goal: to save the Union. For him, nothing mattered more.
--

Happy Holidays and Merry Whatever It Is
That ****es Liberals Off.

Some interesting parallels
 

thunder wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 07:10:08 -0500, BAR wrote:


"consumption based economy?" Please tell me you do not want us all to be
come subsistence farmers? If you do I want to live up stream from you.

No, I mean we have become an incredibly wasteful, resource intensive,
society. In the long run, it is unsustainable, especially with a couple
of billion Indians, and Chinese, wanting to be like us. I don't know
what the future of capitalism will be, but I'll wager it will be
considerably different than the laissez-faire system we have had over the
past century.

Who has the potential for being the bigger waster of the Earth's resources?

China = 1.3 billion people.
Inia = 1.2 billion people.
USA = 0.3 billion people.

What does the Sierra Club think about the Three Gorges Damn project?
What was the result of their protests against the project in China?

When 500 million Indians and 500 million Chinese are driving around in
their gas burning automobiles what will you do to reduce their carbon
footprint?

Some interesting parallels
 

BAR wrote:
thunder wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 07:10:08 -0500, BAR wrote:


"consumption based economy?" Please tell me you do not want us all to be
come subsistence farmers? If you do I want to live up stream from you.

No, I mean we have become an incredibly wasteful, resource intensive,
society. In the long run, it is unsustainable, especially with a
couple of billion Indians, and Chinese, wanting to be like us. I
don't know what the future of capitalism will be, but I'll wager it
will be considerably different than the laissez-faire system we have
had over the past century.

Who has the potential for being the bigger waster of the Earth's resources?

China = 1.3 billion people.
Inia = 1.2 billion people.
USA = 0.3 billion people.

What does the Sierra Club think about the Three Gorges Damn project?
What was the result of their protests against the project in China?

When 500 million Indians and 500 million Chinese are driving around in
their gas burning automobiles what will you do to reduce their carbon
footprint?






Please, try harder. Damned is what you will be. Dam is a structure built
to control a river.

Some interesting parallels
 

On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 19:31:03 -0500, BAR wrote:

thunder wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 07:10:08 -0500, BAR wrote:


"consumption based economy?" Please tell me you do not want us all to be
come subsistence farmers? If you do I want to live up stream from you.

No, I mean we have become an incredibly wasteful, resource intensive,
society. In the long run, it is unsustainable, especially with a couple
of billion Indians, and Chinese, wanting to be like us. I don't know
what the future of capitalism will be, but I'll wager it will be
considerably different than the laissez-faire system we have had over the
past century.

Who has the potential for being the bigger waster of the Earth's resources?

China = 1.3 billion people.
Inia = 1.2 billion people.
USA = 0.3 billion people.

What does the Sierra Club think about the Three Gorges Damn project?
What was the result of their protests against the project in China?

When 500 million Indians and 500 million Chinese are driving around in
their gas burning automobiles what will you do to reduce their carbon
footprint?


Friggin' facts again!

You don't expect an answer to that, do you?
--
* I Have a Degree in Liberal Arts; Do You Want Fries With That? *

John H

Some interesting parallels
 

hk wrote:
Wizard of Woodstock wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 09:29:41 -0500, hk wrote:

http://s21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...n_Portrait.flv


Another liberal arts major who doesn't know or remember his college
course in American History.

"There is a physical difference between the white and black races,
which will forever forbid the two races living together upon terms of
social and political equality.'' - Abraham Lincoln - 1858.

The Civil War wasn't about slavery - it was about preserving the Union
- that above all was Lincoln's primary goal. His Emancipation
Proclamation only served those who weren't under his control - namely
the Confederacy. He didn't free slaves under his own control.

Abraham Lincoln did not believe in the equality of black people. He
did, however -- and this was no minor distinction in his era --
believe in their humanity. He also abhorred slavery. But he was
willing to countenance it if doing so would have vindicated his
primary goal: to save the Union. For him, nothing mattered more.
--


Yeah, Tom, I've seen that same crap quoted on about every right-wing
site I visit,

I have never read any of the right wing sites you are talking about, but
you have no idea what you are talking about. The Emancipation
Proclamation did not end slavery in the United States. It ended Slavery
in those states that did not voluntarily return to the Union before
Jan. 1, 1863. Any state that returned to the Union, would have been
exempt from the Proclamation. There were slave states in the Union
where slavery was legal and the E.P. had no effect on them. In fact,
any area of the Southern States under the Union control were not
effected by the Emancipation Proclamation.

It is very hard to understand what Lincoln's personal view on racial
equality was, because it changed depending upon who he was talking to.

Some interesting parallels
 

On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 19:56:45 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq."
wrote:

hk wrote:
Wizard of Woodstock wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 09:29:41 -0500, hk wrote:

http://s21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...n_Portrait.flv


Another liberal arts major who doesn't know or remember his college
course in American History.

"There is a physical difference between the white and black races,
which will forever forbid the two races living together upon terms of
social and political equality.'' - Abraham Lincoln - 1858.

The Civil War wasn't about slavery - it was about preserving the Union
- that above all was Lincoln's primary goal. His Emancipation
Proclamation only served those who weren't under his control - namely
the Confederacy. He didn't free slaves under his own control.

Abraham Lincoln did not believe in the equality of black people. He
did, however -- and this was no minor distinction in his era --
believe in their humanity. He also abhorred slavery. But he was
willing to countenance it if doing so would have vindicated his
primary goal: to save the Union. For him, nothing mattered more.
--


Yeah, Tom, I've seen that same crap quoted on about every right-wing
site I visit,

I have never read any of the right wing sites you are talking about, but
you have no idea what you are talking about. The Emancipation
Proclamation did not end slavery in the United States. It ended Slavery
in those states that did not voluntarily return to the Union before
Jan. 1, 1863. Any state that returned to the Union, would have been
exempt from the Proclamation. There were slave states in the Union
where slavery was legal and the E.P. had no effect on them. In fact,
any area of the Southern States under the Union control were not
effected by the Emancipation Proclamation.

It is very hard to understand what Lincoln's personal view on racial
equality was, because it changed depending upon who he was talking to.



Sounds like he and Harry have a lot in common.
--
* I Have a Degree in Liberal Arts; Do You Want Fries With That? *

John H

Some interesting parallels
 

On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 00:20:09 GMT, Wizard of Woodstock
wrote:

On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 09:29:41 -0500, hk wrote:

http://s21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...n_Portrait.flv

Another liberal arts major who doesn't know or remember his college
course in American History.

"There is a physical difference between the white and black races,
which will forever forbid the two races living together upon terms of
social and political equality.'' - Abraham Lincoln - 1858.

The Civil War wasn't about slavery - it was about preserving the Union
- that above all was Lincoln's primary goal. His Emancipation
Proclamation only served those who weren't under his control - namely
the Confederacy. He didn't free slaves under his own control.

Abraham Lincoln did not believe in the equality of black people. He
did, however -- and this was no minor distinction in his era --
believe in their humanity. He also abhorred slavery. But he was
willing to countenance it if doing so would have vindicated his
primary goal: to save the Union. For him, nothing mattered more.

Man's progress is incremental. While there may be leaps of science,
human behavior doesn't move as quickly.

Lincoln was of a time when black people were so separated from
humanity that what incremental thoughts he did have were revolutionary
at the time.

Look at what's happened in this country since MLK's march on
Washington. What was a dream but unthinkable 45 years ago has become
a piece of reality. It's not his entire dream but a good chunk of it
is here to witness.

Who knows what Lincoln might have felt 25 years after what you've
quoted?

Some interesting parallels
 

jps wrote:
On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 00:20:09 GMT, Wizard of Woodstock
wrote:

On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 09:29:41 -0500, hk wrote:

http://s21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...n_Portrait.flv
Another liberal arts major who doesn't know or remember his college
course in American History.

"There is a physical difference between the white and black races,
which will forever forbid the two races living together upon terms of
social and political equality.'' - Abraham Lincoln - 1858.

The Civil War wasn't about slavery - it was about preserving the Union
- that above all was Lincoln's primary goal. His Emancipation
Proclamation only served those who weren't under his control - namely
the Confederacy. He didn't free slaves under his own control.

Abraham Lincoln did not believe in the equality of black people. He
did, however -- and this was no minor distinction in his era --
believe in their humanity. He also abhorred slavery. But he was
willing to countenance it if doing so would have vindicated his
primary goal: to save the Union. For him, nothing mattered more.



Who knows what Lincoln might have felt 25 years after what you've
quoted?

jps,
Exactly, so one should not try to rewrite history, and should allow the
historical record to speak for itself. Tom's quick historical review
does accurately describe the historical record. It is not a racist
comment, but a historical comment. Harry tried to brand Tom's comment
as a racist comment made by right wing nutjobs. It isn't.