|
Korean Job Discussion Forums "The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Established in 1994
|
Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2008 1:07 am Post subject: Gore compares Obama to Lincoln |
|
|
Gore: Obama's "lack of experience" no different than that of Lincoln
INVESCO FIELD -- Al Gore, who lost the closest election in national history to George Bush in 2000, chided criticism of Barack Obama�s short resume of experience by comparing it to the most famous man from Illinois, Abraham Lincoln...
�Before he entered the White House, Abraham Lincoln�s experience in elective office consisted of eight years in his state legislature in Springfield, Ill., and one term in Congress during which he showed the courage and wisdom to oppose the invasion of another country that was popular when it started but later condemned by history.�...
�One of the greatest gifts of our democracy is the opportunity it offers us every four years to change course,� Gore said. �It�s not a guarantee, it�s an opportunity. The question facing us is, simply put, will we seize this opportunity for change?
�Eight years ago, some said there was not much difference between the nominees of the two major parties and it didn�t really matter who became president. Our nation was enjoying peace and prosperity. Some assumed we would continue both, no matter the outcome.
�But here we all are in 2008, and I doubt anyone would argue now that election didn�t matter.
�Take it from me, if it had ended differently we would not be bogged down in Iraq, we would have pursued bin Laden until we captured him. We would not be facing a self-inflicted economic crisis; we would be fighting for middle class families.
�We would not be showing contempt for the Constitution, we�d be protecting the rights of every American regardless of race, religion, disability, gender or sexual orientation. And we would not be denying the climate crisis, we would be solving it...
�After they wrecked our economy, it is time for a change. After they abandoned the search for the terrorists who attacked us and redeployed the troops to invade a nation that did not attack us, it�s time for a change.
�After they abandoned the American principle first laid down by General George Washington, when he prohibited the torture of captives because it would bring, in his words, shame, disgrace and ruin to our nation, it�s time for a change.
�When as many as three Supreme Court justices could be appointed in the first term of the next president, and John McCain promises to appoint more Scalias and Thomases and end a woman�s right to choose, it�s time for a change.�
***
A good speech by the man who should now be preparing to retire from the White House.
I liked his statement about change and opportunity. He made a good point about our system of government. We do have an opportunity to change direction every 4 years (you could even say every 2 years) and it is an opportunity. This time we have the opportunity to dump the failed radical policies of this administration in the trash heap of history where they belong. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Tjames426
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
|
Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2008 4:54 pm Post subject: erhmm??? |
|
|
Does that mean Obama will cause a Civil War in the USA??? With the result that State rights will be eroded further in order to produce a stronger central controlled Government???
Does that mean that Obama will be murdered in office???
****
Interesting stuff. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007 Location: retired
|
Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2008 5:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think he is more like Gandhi, Jesus, Rosa Parks, mohammad, Vishnu, Roh and Canadian Heath Care (it's free!) rolled into an organic and free range burrito. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Established in 1994
|
Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2008 6:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: |
Gandhi, Jesus, Rosa Parks, mohammad, Vishnu, Roh and Canadian Heath Care |
Hmmmm...the Case of the Missing Upper-Case Letter: Who's the best detective on psychological cases? Miss Marple? Jim Chee and Joe Leaphorn? Siggie Freud? I'll get back to you. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Established in 1994
|
Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2008 6:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: |
Does that mean Obama will cause a Civil War in the USA??? With the result that State rights will be eroded further in order to produce a stronger central controlled Government???
|
Good attempt at shifting the treasonous actions of the States Righters onto a near-saint. It won't work, but hey. Ya can't blame a guy for trying to justify treason. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
ReeseDog

Joined: 05 Apr 2008 Location: Classified
|
Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2008 6:10 pm Post subject: Re: erhmm??? |
|
|
Tjames426 wrote: |
Does that mean Obama will cause a Civil War in the USA? |
Not a chance.
Tjames426 wrote: |
...State rights will be eroded further in order to produce a stronger central controlled Government? |
While that's generally the Dems' idea, I say no. Folks wouldn't stand for it. Ah, the Articles of Confederation. Why could that not have lasted?
Tjames426 wrote: |
Does that mean that Obama will be murdered in office? |
That's possible. It's been tried (and done) with several others. I think, though, that thinking individuals (clich�) would understand that this is not the way to go. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2008 6:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Lincoln was a Republican, thank you very much. We Republicans served with Abe Lincoln, we knew Abe Lincoln, Abe Lincoln was a friend of ours. Ladies and Gentlemen: Barack Obama is no Abe Lincoln. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
ReeseDog

Joined: 05 Apr 2008 Location: Classified
|
Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2008 6:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Gopher wrote: |
Lincoln was a Republican, thank you very much. We Republicans served with Abe Lincoln, we knew Abe Lincoln, Abe Lincoln was a friend of ours. Ladies and Gentlemen: Barack Obama is no Abe Lincoln. |
Man, not even close. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2008 6:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
Quote: |
Does that mean Obama will cause a Civil War in the USA??? With the result that State rights will be eroded further in order to produce a stronger central controlled Government???
|
Good attempt at shifting the treasonous actions of the States Righters onto a near-saint. It won't work, but hey. Ya can't blame a guy for trying to justify treason. |
Ya-Ta, they were slaveholders. Don't try to stain the legitimate cause of State autonomy by associating it with people who held men in bonds as if those men were chattel. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Established in 1994
|
Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2008 7:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sorry, Kuros. I should have known better than to condemn the political philosophy that has been used to protect slavery, lynching and Jim Crow for decades while people's lives were blighted, destroyed and wasted. I don't know what I could have been thinking. Of course the Bill of Rights should only apply in those states where the majority want it to apply and then only to those the majority want it to apply to. Foolish of me to think that we are a nation of people who happen to have local addresses but all the same rights, rather than a collection of states who have agreed to cooperate only on matters of national defense.
I am sorry for the sarcasm, but I don't know how else to address the most evil and dangerous political philosophy in our body politic when, more than a century after it was discredited, people bring it up as if it deserves respect. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2008 7:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
I am sorry for the sarcasm, but I don't know how else to address the most evil and dangerous political philosophy in our body politic when, more than a century after it was discredited, people bring it up as if it deserves respect. |
I'm very sure you're confused. The Bill of Rights applies to all the States, and always has since the 14th Amendment.
States Rights is a broader question than that. See the improper use of the Commerce Clause.
I would go into detail, but you've already condemned a particular interpretation of the Constitution as evil, simply because of your imperfect understanding of it. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
ReeseDog

Joined: 05 Apr 2008 Location: Classified
|
Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2008 7:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Kuros wrote: |
Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
Quote: |
Does that mean Obama will cause a Civil War in the USA??? With the result that State rights will be eroded further in order to produce a stronger central controlled Government???
|
Good attempt at shifting the treasonous actions of the States Righters onto a near-saint. It won't work, but hey. Ya can't blame a guy for trying to justify treason. |
Ya-Ta, they were slaveholders. Don't try to stain the legitimate cause of State autonomy by associating it with people who held men in bonds as if those men were chattel. |
Quite right. They're separate issues. Secession was the right of the individual states. Clearly those covetous bastards in the north didn't agree. The War of Northern Aggression was a war of dominion - never was it a civil war. Written by the victors, though, as the expression goes... |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2008 7:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ReeseDog wrote: |
Kuros wrote: |
Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
Quote: |
Does that mean Obama will cause a Civil War in the USA??? With the result that State rights will be eroded further in order to produce a stronger central controlled Government???
|
Good attempt at shifting the treasonous actions of the States Righters onto a near-saint. It won't work, but hey. Ya can't blame a guy for trying to justify treason. |
Ya-Ta, they were slaveholders. Don't try to stain the legitimate cause of State autonomy by associating it with people who held men in bonds as if those men were chattel. |
Quite right. They're separate issues. Secession was the right of the individual states. Clearly those covetous bastards in the north didn't agree. The War of Northern Aggression was a war of dominion - never was it a civil war. Written by the victors, though, as the expression goes... |
!!!
No, no. The Right of Secession is not the same as States' Rights! The North had every right to crush slavery, and they were right to establish the 14th Amendment and its Equal Protection Clause.
Eh, nevermind. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Established in 1994
|
Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2008 7:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: |
The Bill of Rights applies to all the States, and always has since the 14th Amendment |
Corrected: The Bill of Rights SHOULD apply to all the states and does when states don't dig in their heels and scream about states rights in order to block progressive social legislation like voting rights.
The 14th Amendment was a mere technicality in matters of voting rights since the government would not enforce it-- a whole lot like freedom of speech under Stalin or Mao. It looked good on paper but was not a reality in the lives of people.
There are two legitimate interpretations of the Constitution, broad and narrow. Most people use both interpretations as they see fit, depending on the issue. States Rights goes beyond the narrow interpretation. That issue was settled by Andrew Jackson (Democrat of Tennessee) in the Nullification Crisis with South Carolina and should have been settled for all time on the battlefields of the Civil War under Lincoln. Notice that your ally on this thread automatically associates secession with States Rights. He is correct historically in considering them linked.
(Name of the war: Having long since been disillusioned to find out that the War of Jenkin's Ear was not really about Jenkin's ear, that the Hundred Years War didn't lasted a long longer than a hundred years, and that the 7 Years War lasted 9 years, I have ceased to quibble over the name of any war.) |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Established in 1994
|
Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2008 8:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: |
No, no. The Right of Secession is not the same as States' Rights! |
Yes, yes.
You can sell yourself as a strict constructionist and I can respect that, but toss the term States Rights into the argument and you have to take on the burden of what the term has always meant. Just because Libertarian screeds wish the term weren't linked to treason, doesn't mean they can have their way. Leftists aren't rightists, Commies weren't fascist but States Righters did do their best to destroy our nation and I understand it very well. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|