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?

Glad to see you agree with me.

Some interesting parallels
 

jps wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 20:20:09 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

On Jan 19, 11:10 pm, jps wrote:
On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 03:13:57 GMT, Tom Francis - SWSports





wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 17:12:30 -0800, 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...action=view&cu...
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.
I can't argue that - his basic humanity was one of his more
outstanding traits and while he didn't, perhaps, believe in total
equality, he certainly wasn't a pro slavery legislator and believe in
the basic human rights for everybody.
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?
Couldn't agree with you more. The point I was making was that slavery
wsn't his major priority - if it were, he would have freed slaves in
states that he did control. His priority was to keep the Union whole
and that's one of the prime reasons, if not THE prime reason, the War
was fought.
I would like to think that Lincoln would have approved of what
resulted from his efforts and, frankly, the election of Obama to the
Presidency. And I agree - we have come a long way from the days of
Selma and Bull Conners.
However, to make comparisons to Lincoln is a bit of a stretch if only
because it was a different time, a different place and a different
society.
If you get a chance, I highly recommend Doris Kearns Goodwin "Team of
Rivals" for an excellant bio of Lincoln - it's an eye opener and she
doesn't pull many punches.
Then you'll be happy to know that it's been among Obama's favorite
books in his preparation to assume the presidency.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
Pfffft. Which audience did he say that to? He said a lot of things
during the campaign, most he has already backed off of... pffffttt

Please do the honorable thing and don't insert yourself between two
people with brains.

You're an embarassment to whomever it is you represent.

Which two people, certainly you are not counting yourself as one of the two.

Some interesting parallels
 

thunder wrote:
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?

Glad to see you agree with me.

I don't agree with you.

If you are a true believer then you will get on a plane, wait a minute,
a sailboat, and go to China or India and protest their use of the Earths
resources. But, your true motives are easy to see. You only want to see
the western world destroyed.

Some interesting parallels
 

On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 18:36:20 -0800, jps wrote:

On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 20:22:56 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq."
wrote:

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.

I don't doubt for a minute that right wing nutjobs would use any
portion of any comment to make their point, without regard to the
context or timing. Lincoln may have had a change of heart the next
week, don't expect the weak-of-mind right wing to admit it or bring it
forward on their own.

Have you ever noticed how many liberals resort to name-calling and personal
insults to back up their arguments?

Does that enhance your self-esteem? Does it make you the 'winner' in your
eyes?
--
John H

*A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing. *