|
Some interesting parallels
On Jan 18, 2:43*pm, Wizard of Woodstock wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 10:52:35 -0500, hk wrote: thunder wrote: On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 07:14:34 -0800, justwaitafrekinminute wrote: Did you see one of the "shovel ready" projects Obama wants to fund is a Mob Museum in Nevada? Cite, please? *The Mayor of Las Vegas, Oscar Goodman, is *seeking* Federal funding. *No where will you find Obama stating he "wants" to fund it. I think we'll be seeing a lot of heavy and highway projects and other federal construction that falls under the purview of Davis-Bacon and prevailing wages. The Big Dig - oh joy. *15 Billion for what was supposed to be a 3 Billion project. *12 years in the making when it was supposed to take 7. Union featherbedding rampant. *Cement contractors cheating on the concrete. *Bad epoxy leading to the death of some poor schmuck who was on her way to the airport. *1.6 Billion in legal expenses. *The tunnels leak at a gazillion gallons a day. Tripled tolls on the Mass Pike. Yep - let's go for broke. Pun intended. -- Chaos! Panic! Disaster! (My work here is done) http://wikimapia.org/1361663/Marble-...lant-Abandoned |
Some interesting parallels
On Jan 18, 2:46*pm, "Don White" wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message ... thunder wrote: On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 10:54:24 -0500, BAR wrote: This highway work should have been occurring for the last 40 years due to it being funded by federal gasoline and diesel taxes. Yup, there's been lots of infrastructure neglected. *Hopefully, this stimulus package will kill two birds, get the economy moving again, and fix our crumbling bridges, and roads. This stimulus package is nothing but a power grab. The Congress should be strung up and beaten with a stick until the funds from the gasoline and diesel taxes are actually spent on the roads instead of redirected into the general fund. The stimulus package is not going to get the economy moving again. You could send everyone a check for $1000 and it wouldn't do anything to get the economy moving again. We need a long term solution, something that is going to give everyone long term confidence that the economy is going to improve. Eliminate corporate taxes, reduce capital gains taxes and cut personal income taxes in half but, make sure that everyone who earns income pays taxes. No individual gets a free ride on taxes. This will get the economy moving again. The people will have confidence that they will have more money to spend themselves. Businesses will have more money to spend on capital equipment and the ability to hire more people. Investors will be encouraged to move their money into ventures that may produce greater returns. The government is the last last place to turn to get the economy moving due to the fact that they haven't got the foggiest idea of what to invest in or how to spend money to gain the greatest impact due to the professional politicians who control the purse strings. You're as bad as Justhate... always looking to weasel out of paying your fair share of taxes. Who's supposed to pay for Bushs' adventures in the Middle East? Don. I'm glad you brought that up. A friend of mine asked the same type of question. something like... "I don't see how the 'govt' is going to pay for all of this." I has sort of a tongue 'n cheek reply... "Have you ever known the 'govt' to be concerned abotu paying anything back?" I may be wrong, but I thought that was a fair evaluation. |
Some interesting parallels
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 13:00:10 -0500, Eisboch wrote:
"thunder" wrote in message t... On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 11:30:33 -0500, BAR wrote: We need a long term solution, something that is going to give everyone long term confidence that the economy is going to improve. Eliminate corporate taxes, reduce capital gains taxes and cut personal income taxes in half but, make sure that everyone who earns income pays taxes. No individual gets a free ride on taxes. This will get the economy moving again. The people will have confidence that they will have more money to spend themselves. Businesses will have more money to spend on capital equipment and the ability to hire more people. Investors will be encouraged to move their money into ventures that may produce greater returns. Sell that tired Republican BS to someone else. If you haven't noticed, we have been doing what you suggest for the past 20 years, and look where it's gotten us. A growing, expanding and healthy business base and Wall Street swindling are two different issues. The latter was in some cases initiated by government intervention and in all cases by the lack of government oversight of what they initiated. If we intend to keep capitalism as our economic engine, BAR is absolutely correct and many honest (meaning non-politically motivated) economic experts agree. Growing and investing businesses have always been the catalyst for an expanding economy, employment and consumer confidence/spending. Throw a wet towel on business in the form of taxes and the economy slows down. Happens everytime. Now, if you are suggesting we replace our business based economic engine with something else, then all bets are off. I'm suggesting that since Ronald Reagan, Republicans have been running on "government being the problem". Deregulation and privatization were the mantras. I'm suggesting recent events have put an end to such silliness. A literal handful of fat cats have just choked the *world's* economy, and people are looking to their governments to save it. Now, I don't know how deep this recession is going to be, but if it is deep and long, people are going to demand changes. Capitalism is going to be redefined, and laissez-faire is not going to be part of the definition. Capitalism is a healthy and robust adjunct to democracy, but in my world, business is here to serve people, not the other way around. When greed runs amuck on Wall Street, and thousands on Main Street are put out of work, there should be, and, I suspect, there will be changes. Look closely at the social turmoil during the Great Depression. I would suggest that as a country, we are not nearly as polite now, as we were then. I would also suggest that on this increasingly small planet, this consumption based economy that has sustained us all these years, is a dying paradigm, but that's another story. ;-) |
Some interesting parallels
thunder wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 13:00:10 -0500, Eisboch wrote: "thunder" wrote in message t... On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 11:30:33 -0500, BAR wrote: We need a long term solution, something that is going to give everyone long term confidence that the economy is going to improve. Eliminate corporate taxes, reduce capital gains taxes and cut personal income taxes in half but, make sure that everyone who earns income pays taxes. No individual gets a free ride on taxes. This will get the economy moving again. The people will have confidence that they will have more money to spend themselves. Businesses will have more money to spend on capital equipment and the ability to hire more people. Investors will be encouraged to move their money into ventures that may produce greater returns. Sell that tired Republican BS to someone else. If you haven't noticed, we have been doing what you suggest for the past 20 years, and look where it's gotten us. A growing, expanding and healthy business base and Wall Street swindling are two different issues. The latter was in some cases initiated by government intervention and in all cases by the lack of government oversight of what they initiated. If we intend to keep capitalism as our economic engine, BAR is absolutely correct and many honest (meaning non-politically motivated) economic experts agree. Growing and investing businesses have always been the catalyst for an expanding economy, employment and consumer confidence/spending. Throw a wet towel on business in the form of taxes and the economy slows down. Happens everytime. Now, if you are suggesting we replace our business based economic engine with something else, then all bets are off. I'm suggesting that since Ronald Reagan, Republicans have been running on "government being the problem". Deregulation and privatization were the mantras. I'm suggesting recent events have put an end to such silliness. A literal handful of fat cats have just choked the *world's* economy, and people are looking to their governments to save it. Now, I don't know how deep this recession is going to be, but if it is deep and long, people are going to demand changes. Capitalism is going to be redefined, and laissez-faire is not going to be part of the definition. Capitalism is a healthy and robust adjunct to democracy, but in my world, business is here to serve people, not the other way around. When greed runs amuck on Wall Street, and thousands on Main Street are put out of work, there should be, and, I suspect, there will be changes. Look closely at the social turmoil during the Great Depression. I would suggest that as a country, we are not nearly as polite now, as we were then. I would also suggest that on this increasingly small planet, this consumption based economy that has sustained us all these years, is a dying paradigm, but that's another story. ;-) "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. |
Some interesting parallels
On Jan 18, 8:38*am, BAR wrote:
hk wrote: * *http://s21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...action=view&cu... Parallels? What parallels. agreed. I watched the entire vid and saw no parallel to anything. Great tribute to Abe, though. |
Some interesting parallels
On Jan 19, 8:22*am, Tim wrote:
On Jan 18, 8:38*am, BAR wrote: hk wrote: * *http://s21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...action=view&cu... Parallels? What parallels. agreed. *I watched the entire vid and saw no parallel to anything. Great tribute to Abe, though. That's because you're not a dilusional narcissist like Harry! |
Some interesting parallels
On Jan 18, 4:37*pm, Boater wrote:
Eisboch wrote: "hk" wrote in message ... Your comments are typical of those who neither did well nor go far in formal education. Education is a must. *Degrees are very desirable. *Degrees aren't a problem. People who judge their value or the value of others simply by the type or number of degrees he/she holds is the problem. Eisboch I make my judgments here based upon the contents of the posts. JustWait is a parrot of the uninformed right-wing Flatland. The conclusions he jumps to wouldn't allow him to clear an expansion crack in a concrete sidewalk. Those would be control joints, unless the installation was done improperly, then they would be cracks from contraction. |
Some interesting parallels
|
Some interesting parallels
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. |
Some interesting parallels
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 your 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 -- * I Have a Degree in Liberal Arts; Do You Want Fries With That? * John H |
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. |
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
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. * |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:13 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com