Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Weasel Zippers)   "This building is dedicated to public service in memory of Abraham Lincoln, Democrat"   (weaselzippers.us ) divider line
    More: Fail  
•       •       •

1782 clicks; posted to Politics » on 04 Nov 2013 at 10:15 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



115 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-11-04 10:16:56 AM  
And therefore Romney is president and Sarah Palin is Empress of Alaska etc. etc.
 
2013-11-04 10:17:17 AM  
Small-"d" democrat, maybe...

Why even put a party identification on there in the first place?
 
2013-11-04 10:17:23 AM  
Yeah, sorry, we forgot to tell you guys that we changed the history books. We'll be emailing out a flyer later today. We traded Kennedy for Lincoln.
 
2013-11-04 10:18:25 AM  
It actually refers to Abraham Schlomo Lincoln IV, a retired tailor who used to work the booths on Election Day. He WAS a Democrat, as it turns out.
 
2013-11-04 10:20:02 AM  
Really should list him as National Union...
 
2013-11-04 10:20:27 AM  
Fox News is unimpressed.
 
2013-11-04 10:20:29 AM  
While the stupidity must be strong with the individual who let this one fly, equally stupid will be the denizons of Mongoloid-Americans who will come in here and take copious sh*ts on this thread defending Lincoln as a stalwart of their party when he couldn't be farther from the derpitudes of insanity that currently infect the GOP.
 
2013-11-04 10:21:38 AM  
History is written by the victors.
 
2013-11-04 10:22:22 AM  

Arkanaut: Why even put a party identification on there in the first place?


THIS
 
2013-11-04 10:22:25 AM  
For the genius behind the plaque

*yourenothelping.jpg
 
2013-11-04 10:23:30 AM  
If Lincoln were alive today, today's republicans would want him shot.
 
2013-11-04 10:23:36 AM  
Would be if he was alive today
 
2013-11-04 10:23:56 AM  

coeyagi: While the stupidity must be strong with the individual who let this one fly, equally stupid will be the denizons of Mongoloid-Americans who will come in here and take copious sh*ts on this thread defending Lincoln as a stalwart of their party when he couldn't be farther from the derpitudes of insanity that currently infect the GOP.


I thought Lincoln was a tyrant who fought a war of aggression against the South who were only defending their right to property and state sovereignty?
 
2013-11-04 10:25:07 AM  

Fart_Machine: coeyagi: While the stupidity must be strong with the individual who let this one fly, equally stupid will be the denizons of Mongoloid-Americans who will come in here and take copious sh*ts on this thread defending Lincoln as a stalwart of their party when he couldn't be farther from the derpitudes of insanity that currently infect the GOP.

I thought Lincoln was a tyrant who fought a war of aggression against the South who were only defending their right to property and state sovereignty?


He was that, too. It's called "doublethink".
 
2013-11-04 10:25:27 AM  

Lando Lincoln: Yeah, sorry, we forgot to tell you guys that we changed the history books. We'll be emailing out a flyer later today. We traded Kennedy for Lincoln.


I've got three Whigs, two Know-Nothings, and a Bull Moose to trade for some Federalists.
 
2013-11-04 10:26:44 AM  
Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond were well-known Democrats.  That's how you know that Democrats are the Real Racists.
 
2013-11-04 10:27:21 AM  
Lincoln threw people in jail without trial, or even evidence.(during the war)  I can't say I approve of that then anymore than I did when Bush did it.
 
2013-11-04 10:28:44 AM  

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: Lando Lincoln: Yeah, sorry, we forgot to tell you guys that we changed the history books. We'll be emailing out a flyer later today. We traded Kennedy for Lincoln.

I've got three Whigs, two Know-Nothings, and a Bull Moose to trade for some Federalists.


You run a craft beer store or something?
 
2013-11-04 10:30:28 AM  

Hot Carl To Go: Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: Lando Lincoln: Yeah, sorry, we forgot to tell you guys that we changed the history books. We'll be emailing out a flyer later today. We traded Kennedy for Lincoln.

I've got three Whigs, two Know-Nothings, and a Bull Moose to trade for some Federalists.

You run a craft beer store or something?


"growler station"
 
2013-11-04 10:30:46 AM  
This guy from the comments:

Let the libs have him. Lincoln jump started the decline in constitutional adherence. He destroyed states' rights. After all it was the states that created the fed not vice versa. Slavery should have been abolished within the framework of the constitution.

This guy has studied it out so hard he's seen the farking matrix.

THIS. GUY.!.

/this guy
 
2013-11-04 10:31:39 AM  
I was talking to a guy in my office the other day who said he didn't know Lincoln was a Republican until he watched the recent "Lincoln" movie directed by Steven Spielberg.  Kind of blew my mind.
 
2013-11-04 10:32:29 AM  
weaselzippers.us

Ummmm...

captainjamesdavis.files.wordpress.com

...wait...what?
 
2013-11-04 10:32:38 AM  

Lando Lincoln: Yeah, sorry, we forgot to tell you guys that we changed the history books. We'll be emailing out a flyer later today. We traded Kennedy for Lincoln.


And a future President to be named later.
 
2013-11-04 10:34:02 AM  
It's an easy mistake to make these days....
 
2013-11-04 10:35:02 AM  
Modern day Republicans claiming Lincoln is like Modern Day Christians claiming Jesus
 
2013-11-04 10:35:20 AM  

Mrfusticle: This guy from the comments:

Let the libs have him. Lincoln jump started the decline in constitutional adherence. He destroyed states' rights. After all it was the states that created the fed not vice versa. Slavery should have been abolished within the framework of the constitution.

This guy has studied it out so hard he's seen the farking matrix.

THIS. GUY.!.

/this guy


I find that comment completely fascinating on about a dozen levels.
 
2013-11-04 10:35:57 AM  

A PLAQUE ON BOTH YOUR HOUSES!

 
2013-11-04 10:36:06 AM  

Snarfangel: Lando Lincoln: Yeah, sorry, we forgot to tell you guys that we changed the history books. We'll be emailing out a flyer later today. We traded Kennedy for Lincoln.

And a future President to be named later.


Maimed, I mean. A future President to be maimed later.
 
2013-11-04 10:36:22 AM  
What party Lincoln would have been in is a) irrelevant and b) complicated.  The political issues of the mid-19th century don't really cross over to the 21st century.  Lincoln would have supported a lot of things that the Republicans support, and a lot of things that the Democrats support.

He certainly wouldn't have been an extreme conservative or an extreme liberal.
 
2013-11-04 10:36:32 AM  

offmymeds: [weaselzippers.us image 550x244]

Ummmm...

[captainjamesdavis.files.wordpress.com image 467x339]

...wait...what?


Even more deplorable, they double-spaced before "Democrat."
 
2013-11-04 10:36:35 AM  

houginator: I was talking to a guy in my office the other day who said he didn't know Lincoln was a Republican until he watched the recent "Lincoln" movie directed by Steven Spielberg.  Kind of blew my mind.


On a past segment from 60 Minutes David McCullough told about a grad student who came up to him after a lecture and told him until his lecture she never realized there were thirteen original colonies.
 
2013-11-04 10:36:48 AM  
Well to be fair, Illinois is pretty far from his hometown in Pennsylvania.    They should be given a little slack for missing one tiny detail.
 
2013-11-04 10:37:27 AM  
No, no, sillies, the word "Democrat" is in the vocative case - the plaque is addressed to any Democrat that happens to read it.
 
2013-11-04 10:37:30 AM  

ikanreed: Lincoln threw people in jail without trial, or even evidence.(during the war)  I can't say I approve of that then anymore than I did when Bush did it.


The difference is there was a declared war during Lincoln's presidency.
 
2013-11-04 10:37:44 AM  

Arkanaut: Small-"d" democrat, maybe...

Why even put a party identification on there in the first place?


He started a war to override popular will so I don't think he can claim that one either.
 
2013-11-04 10:38:42 AM  

DarwiOdrade: No, no, sillies, the word "Democrat" is in the vocative case - the plaque is addressed to any Democrat that happens to read it.


third person plural, present indicative
 
2013-11-04 10:39:18 AM  

Mrfusticle: This guy from the comments:

Let the libs have him. Lincoln jump started the decline in constitutional adherence. He destroyed states' rights. After all it was the states that created the fed not vice versa. Slavery should have been abolished within the framework of the constitution.

This guy has studied it out so hard he's seen the farking matrix.

THIS. GUY.!.

/this guy


Now, now. It's not nice to pick on Ron Paul supporters like that. They can't help the fact that they're autistic.
 
2013-11-04 10:39:23 AM  

funk_soul_bubby: houginator: I was talking to a guy in my office the other day who said he didn't know Lincoln was a Republican until he watched the recent "Lincoln" movie directed by Steven Spielberg.  Kind of blew my mind.

On a past segment from 60 Minutes David McCullough told about a grad student who came up to him after a lecture and told him until his lecture she never realized there were thirteen original colonies.


Twelve, actually. I've always found South Carolina fairly derivative.
 
2013-11-04 10:39:50 AM  

ikanreed: Lincoln threw people in jail without trial, or even evidence.(during the war)  I can't say I approve of that then anymore than I did when Bush did it.


In fairness, there was rather more on the line when Abe did it.
 
2013-11-04 10:39:52 AM  

lohphat: ikanreed: Lincoln threw people in jail without trial, or even evidence.(during the war)  I can't say I approve of that then anymore than I did when Bush did it.

The difference is there was a declared war during Lincoln's presidency.


No there wasn't. Wiki.
 
2013-11-04 10:41:36 AM  

Ned Stark: Arkanaut: Small-"d" democrat, maybe...

Why even put a party identification on there in the first place?

He started a war to override popular will so I don't think he can claim that one either.


What popular will? Weren't Southerners (not counting their "3/5th property" vote) only around 1/5 of the US population at the time of the Civil War?
 
2013-11-04 10:43:36 AM  
Did Fox News make the plaque?
 
2013-11-04 10:45:17 AM  

Fart_Machine: coeyagi: While the stupidity must be strong with the individual who let this one fly, equally stupid will be the denizons of Mongoloid-Americans who will come in here and take copious sh*ts on this thread defending Lincoln as a stalwart of their party when he couldn't be farther from the derpitudes of insanity that currently infect the GOP.

I thought Lincoln was a tyrant who fought a war of aggression against the South who were only defending their right to property and state sovereignty?


Depends on the argument being made by the Grand Ole Potato.  If they are trying to appeal to moderates, Lincoln was a Republican and the best one ever at that (sorry Ray-gun).  If they are trying to appeal to Derp-Americans, Lincoln was the biggest tyrant something something what you said that every somethinged.
 
2013-11-04 10:46:47 AM  

Mrfusticle: This guy from the comments:

Let the libs have him. Lincoln jump started the decline in constitutional adherence. He destroyed states' rights. After all it was the states that created the fed not vice versa. Slavery should have been abolished within the framework of the constitution.

This guy has studied it out so hard he's seen the farking matrix.

THIS. GUY.!.

/this guy


No he is right. Abraham Lincoln, William Tecumseh Sherman, Ulyss. S Grant founded the third United States. They are the founding fathers we should be looking too, not Jefferson, Washington, and Adams. They were for a strong federal government, weak states, and the rule of equality. Those are my founding fathers and they should be yours too.
 
2013-11-04 10:48:11 AM  
Weren't they called the democrat-republicans back in the day?
 
2013-11-04 10:48:16 AM  

Ned Stark: Arkanaut: Small-"d" democrat, maybe...

Why even put a party identification on there in the first place?

He started a war to override popular will so I don't think he can claim that one either.


Bwhahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Oh man you either a sublime comedian or an idiot. Either way well done.
 
2013-11-04 10:48:43 AM  

the_vegetarian_cannibal: Ned Stark: Arkanaut: Small-"d" democrat, maybe...

Why even put a party identification on there in the first place?

He started a war to override popular will so I don't think he can claim that one either.

What popular will? Weren't Southerners (not counting their "3/5th property" vote) only around 1/5 of the US population at the time of the Civil War?


They had a solid voting majority in favor of succession within their proposed territory.

Certainly there were plenty of slaves within same who were non voters, but Lincoln is repeatedly on record as having been willing to keep slavery around and deeply opposed to equality so it doesn't seem relevant.
 
2013-11-04 10:51:27 AM  

Ned Stark: the_vegetarian_cannibal: Ned Stark: Arkanaut: Small-"d" democrat, maybe...

Why even put a party identification on there in the first place?

He started a war to override popular will so I don't think he can claim that one either.

What popular will? Weren't Southerners (not counting their "3/5th property" vote) only around 1/5 of the US population at the time of the Civil War?

They had a solid voting majority in favor of succession within their proposed territory.

Certainly there were plenty of slaves within same who were non voters, but Lincoln is repeatedly on record as having been willing to keep slavery around and deeply opposed to equality so it doesn't seem relevant.


Yeah, but they were voting on an issue that would have direct effects beyond their own borders and onto other states as well. Not an issue that only a majority within their own proposed territory should have a say in.
 
2013-11-04 10:51:32 AM  
I'm going out on a limb and say that plaque has probably been there since the institute opened in 1966, And because in 1966 Republicans weren't the party they would become just yet.  That they meant democrat vs dictator instead of Democrat vs Republican.
That this is all a storm in a teacup where Conservatives will feel good about making a lot of noise and heat about nothing.

But hey, I could be wrong. It could be new and stupid.
 
2013-11-04 10:55:40 AM  

i.imgur.com

sense, this thread makes none, therefore pic not related

 
2013-11-04 10:55:47 AM  

Slaves2Darkness: Mrfusticle: This guy from the comments:

Let the libs have him. Lincoln jump started the decline in constitutional adherence. He destroyed states' rights. After all it was the states that created the fed not vice versa. Slavery should have been abolished within the framework of the constitution.

This guy has studied it out so hard he's seen the farking matrix.

THIS. GUY.!.

/this guy

No he is right. Abraham Lincoln, William Tecumseh Sherman, Ulyss. S Grant founded the third United States. They are the founding fathers we should be looking too, not Jefferson, Washington, and Adams. They were for a strong federal government, weak states, and the rule of equality. Those are my founding fathers and they should be yours too.


1. My country's founders were a bunch of hairy druids.. and they'd still be yours if the French hadn't helped you kick us out.

2. Up to thirty years ago you seem to have done alright despite the whole "decline in constitutional adherence"..
I'd be happy with Lincoln's contribution if I were you.
 
2013-11-04 10:55:53 AM  
democrat:
a :  an adherent of democracy
b:  one who practices social equality
 
2013-11-04 10:58:15 AM  

wildcardjack: lohphat: ikanreed: Lincoln threw people in jail without trial, or even evidence.(during the war)  I can't say I approve of that then anymore than I did when Bush did it.

The difference is there was a declared war during Lincoln's presidency.

No there wasn't. Wiki.


Ahem.
 
2013-11-04 11:00:44 AM  

the_vegetarian_cannibal: Ned Stark: the_vegetarian_cannibal: Ned Stark: Arkanaut: Small-"d" democrat, maybe...

Why even put a party identification on there in the first place?

He started a war to override popular will so I don't think he can claim that one either.

What popular will? Weren't Southerners (not counting their "3/5th property" vote) only around 1/5 of the US population at the time of the Civil War?

They had a solid voting majority in favor of succession within their proposed territory.

Certainly there were plenty of slaves within same who were non voters, but Lincoln is repeatedly on record as having been willing to keep slavery around and deeply opposed to equality so it doesn't seem relevant.

Yeah, but they were voting on an issue that would have direct effects beyond their own borders and onto other states as well. Not an issue that only a majority within their own proposed territory should have a say in.


That's totally wrong.

But your wrongness is besides the point. Its still an anti democratic sentiment even if you are correct. Self governance is like priority 2 of the idea.
 
2013-11-04 11:01:06 AM  
define: democrat


democrat
[dem-uh-krat]
noun
1.an advocate of democracy.
2.a person who believes in the political or social equality of all people.

3.(initial capital letter) Politics.
a.a member of the Democratic party.
b.a member of the Democratic-Republican party.
4.Also called democrat wagon. a high, lightweight, horse-drawn wagon, usually having two seats.


Quick, men, to the S.S. Butthurt! We sail to indignation under the flag of outrage!
 
2013-11-04 11:04:50 AM  
No, no, no.  You're only supposed to call a Republican a democrat if they've done something illegal.
 
2013-11-04 11:07:13 AM  

Arkanaut: Small-"d" democrat, maybe...


What other kind is there?

/the democrat party must always be uncapitalized
 
2013-11-04 11:14:35 AM  

Ned Stark: Arkanaut: Small-"d" democrat, maybe...

Why even put a party identification on there in the first place?

He started a war to override popular will so I don't think he can claim that one either.


Secessionism is contrary to the very idea of "popular will".  If political entities wanted to split up every time there's a serious disagreement what you end up with is more like anarchy than democracy.
 
2013-11-04 11:18:28 AM  

Ned Stark: That's totally wrong.


Why?
 
2013-11-04 11:19:14 AM  

Arkanaut: Ned Stark: Arkanaut: Small-"d" democrat, maybe...

Why even put a party identification on there in the first place?

He started a war to override popular will so I don't think he can claim that one either.

Secessionism is contrary to the very idea of "popular will".  If political entities wanted to split up every time there's a serious disagreement what you end up with is more like anarchy than democracy.


If I had a fiver in my pocket id go buy a coffee.
 
2013-11-04 11:29:11 AM  

the_vegetarian_cannibal: Ned Stark: That's totally wrong.

Why?


Because people do, in fact, have a right to govern themselves. How the people of Georgia choose to organize themselves is no business of Iowa's, even if a NW border makes selling corn there slightly harder.(they grow corn in Iowa, right?)
 
2013-11-04 11:32:22 AM  

sprawl15: DarwiOdrade: No, no, sillies, the word "Democrat" is in the vocative case - the plaque is addressed to any Democrat that happens to read it.

third person plural, present indicative


www.thelin.net
 
2013-11-04 11:34:36 AM  

Snarfangel: funk_soul_bubby: houginator: I was talking to a guy in my office the other day who said he didn't know Lincoln was a Republican until he watched the recent "Lincoln" movie directed by Steven Spielberg.  Kind of blew my mind.

On a past segment from 60 Minutes David McCullough told about a grad student who came up to him after a lecture and told him until his lecture she never realized there were thirteen original colonies.

Twelve, actually. I've always found South Carolina fairly derivative.


I recounted the story incorrectly anyway.
 
2013-11-04 11:35:24 AM  
Southern Conservatives in Lincoln's day were Democrats. The Republicans were the liberals.
 
2013-11-04 11:39:11 AM  

Ned Stark: the_vegetarian_cannibal: Ned Stark: That's totally wrong.

Why?

Because people do, in fact, have a right to govern themselves. How the people of Georgia choose to organize themselves is no business of Iowa's, even if a NW border makes selling corn there slightly harder.(they grow corn in Iowa, right?)



It's fun that for people arguing this point of state rights and declaring themselves principled and stalwart defenders of freedom always skip over the large class of people in those states who didn't get to choose how Georgia organized itself. And that the whole reason of claiming that freedom of secession was only to deny others all freedom.

I wonder why?
 
2013-11-04 11:47:05 AM  
you libs are so desperate if Lincoln were alive today he'd still be a Real American Patriot and a card carrying member of the Republican party, and he'd be waving the confederate flag with all the rest of us
 
2013-11-04 11:47:14 AM  

Pants full of macaroni!!: No, no, no.  You're only supposed to call a Republican a democrat if they've done something illegal.


Isn't that what makes them a Democrat?
 
2013-11-04 11:50:00 AM  

culculhen: Ned Stark: the_vegetarian_cannibal: Ned Stark: That's totally wrong.

Why?

Because people do, in fact, have a right to govern themselves. How the people of Georgia choose to organize themselves is no business of Iowa's, even if a NW border makes selling corn there slightly harder.(they grow corn in Iowa, right?)


It's fun that for people arguing this point of state rights and declaring themselves principled and stalwart defenders of freedom always skip over the large class of people in those states who didn't get to choose how Georgia organized itself. And that the whole reason of claiming that freedom of secession was only to deny others all freedom.

I wonder why?


Because we are talking about theories of government not who should have won?

Some of us can acknowledge that our heros can be wrong about things without having an aneurysm over the "contradiction". Because we aren't 12.
 
2013-11-04 12:01:32 PM  

Arkanaut: Secessionism is contrary to the very idea of "popular will".  If political entities wanted to split up every time there's a serious disagreement what you end up with is more like anarchy than democracy.


That would be an odd assertion outside of the United States. Somehow Canada (whose S. Ct. ruled Quebec secession legal) and the UK (which is holding a secession referendum in Scotland next year) don't seem to think secessionism is inherently undemocratic.
 
2013-11-04 12:05:22 PM  

lohphat: wildcardjack: lohphat: ikanreed: Lincoln threw people in jail without trial, or even evidence.(during the war)  I can't say I approve of that then anymore than I did when Bush did it.

The difference is there was a declared war during Lincoln's presidency.

No there wasn't. Wiki.

Ahem.


Did you bother to even look at your own link?  It's not a declaration of war, and it happened during the Johnson Administration.  So...good job?
 
2013-11-04 12:06:40 PM  

Ned Stark: Because people do, in fact, have a right to govern themselves. How the people of Georgia choose to organize themselves is no business of Iowa's, even if a NW border makes selling corn there slightly harder.(they grow corn in Iowa, right?)


It depends. If Alabama had its' way, they'd still have "whites only" bathrooms. Sometimes, we, as a Union, have to step in and slap stupid people down.
 
2013-11-04 12:07:11 PM  
coeyagi:   While the stupidity must be strong with the individual who let this one fly, equally stupid will be the denizons of Mongoloid-Americans who will come in here and take copious sh*ts on this thread defending Lincoln as a stalwart of their party when he couldn't be farther from the derpitudes of insanity that currently infect the GOP.

Regardless, I'm going to use this thread as an opportunity to tell you for the 1,464,527th time that I think today's Republicans suck.

1/3 of the words.  Your welcome.
 
2013-11-04 12:11:04 PM  
Zeb Hesselgresser: coeyagi:   While the stupidity must be strong with the individual who let this one fly, equally stupid will be the denizons of Mongoloid-Americans who will come in here and take copious sh*ts on this thread defending Lincoln as a stalwart of their party when he couldn't be farther from the derpitudes of insanity that currently infect the GOP.

Regardless, I'm going to use this thread as an opportunity to tell you for the 1,464,527th time that I think today's Republicans suck.

1/3 of the words.  Your welcome.


I'm upset how much Republicans actually suck

1/3 of the words. You're welcome
 
2013-11-04 12:18:37 PM  

ikanreed: Lincoln threw people in jail without trial, or even evidence.(during the war)  I can't say I approve of that then anymore than I did when Bush did it.


As did FDR on a grand scale. So what should we conclude from this, that sometimes leaders behave in a tyrannical manner? Not exactly a revelation. Or maybe by focusing on two Republicans instead of the broad field, you mean to imply something else?
 
2013-11-04 12:22:44 PM  

Churchill2004: Arkanaut: Secessionism is contrary to the very idea of "popular will".  If political entities wanted to split up every time there's a serious disagreement what you end up with is more like anarchy than democracy.

That would be an odd assertion outside of the United States. Somehow Canada (whose S. Ct. ruled Quebec secession legal) and the UK (which is holding a secession referendum in Scotland next year) don't seem to think secessionism is inherently undemocratic.


Perhaps their legal institutions1 don't think so, but when they put it to a popular vote2, those votes don't seem to pass.  Either way I believe it's a bad precedent to set.

1 are those courts popularly elected?
2 which wasn't what the Confederacy did, by the way
 
2013-11-04 12:26:46 PM  

CPennypacker: Zeb Hesselgresser: coeyagi:   While the stupidity must be strong with the individual who let this one fly, equally stupid will be the denizons of Mongoloid-Americans who will come in here and take copious sh*ts on this thread defending Lincoln as a stalwart of their party when he couldn't be farther from the derpitudes of insanity that currently infect the GOP.

Regardless, I'm going to use this thread as an opportunity to tell you for the 1,464,527th time that I think today's Republicans suck.

1/3 of the words.  Your welcome.

I'm upset how much Republicans actually suck

1/3 of the words. You're welcome


Well, you're not wrong about that, thanks.
 
2013-11-04 12:27:08 PM  

themadtupper: lohphat: wildcardjack: lohphat: ikanreed: Lincoln threw people in jail without trial, or even evidence.(during the war)  I can't say I approve of that then anymore than I did when Bush did it.

The difference is there was a declared war during Lincoln's presidency.

No there wasn't. Wiki.

Ahem.

Did you bother to even look at your own link?  It's not a declaration of war, and it happened during the Johnson Administration.  So...good job?


The point as they had the balks to at some point declare and acknowledge they were in the middle of a war.
 
2013-11-04 12:29:50 PM  

Arkanaut: Perhaps their legal institutions1 don't think so, but when they put it to a popular vote2, those votes don't seem to pass.  Either way I believe it's a bad precedent to set.


To hold the Scottish vote was a political decision, enacted by agreement between the Scottish and British governments, both of which are elected. The Quebec case came about only as a result of the political movement for secession pushing to hold a vote, again with the support and on the initiative of the elected Quebec government, which they then lost only narrowly in 1995.

If you want successful secessions, you need look no further than the creation of Kosovo and South Sudan, or go back slightly further to the break-up of the Soviet Union, where you saw in secession the triumph of democracy over authoritarianism. Secession is not inherently anti-democratic- there are plenty of examples to disprove that. I won't argue that the secessions of 1860-61 were in fact anti-democratic both in manner and effect, but that doesn't disprove the idea that democratically legitimate secession can occur.
 
2013-11-04 12:35:14 PM  
What font is that plaque?
 
2013-11-04 12:36:10 PM  
4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-11-04 12:37:16 PM  

StubhyGraham: [4.bp.blogspot.com image 850x674]


"Hey, turn off the damn halo, jackass, I'm trying to watch a play"
 
2013-11-04 12:37:31 PM  

Churchill2004: Arkanaut: Perhaps their legal institutions1 don't think so, but when they put it to a popular vote2, those votes don't seem to pass.  Either way I believe it's a bad precedent to set.

To hold the Scottish vote was a political decision, enacted by agreement between the Scottish and British governments, both of which are elected. The Quebec case came about only as a result of the political movement for secession pushing to hold a vote, again with the support and on the initiative of the elected Quebec government, which they then lost only narrowly in 1995.

If you want successful secessions, you need look no further than the creation of Kosovo and South Sudan, or go back slightly further to the break-up of the Soviet Union, where you saw in secession the triumph of democracy over authoritarianism. Secession is not inherently anti-democratic- there are plenty of examples to disprove that. I won't argue that the secessions of 1860-61 were in fact anti-democratic both in manner and effect, but that doesn't disprove the idea that democratically legitimate secession can occur.


Yugoslavia, Sudan, and the USSR weren't really democratic states though, and can't really claim to represent the "popular will" (although I'm sure they would say they do anyway).  I suppose you could say that seceding from a dictatorship or antidemocratic state is better than the alternative.

It would be interesting to see if Scotland would leave the UK... that could be a bit of a mess.
 
2013-11-04 12:41:09 PM  

Arkanaut: suppose you could say that seceding from a dictatorship or antidemocratic state is better than the alternative.


Britain was by far the most liberal and democratic state on the planet in 1775.
 
2013-11-04 12:46:47 PM  

Fart_Machine:I thought Lincoln was a tyrant who fought a war of aggression against the South who were only defending their right to property and state sovereignty?

I think you're mixing up the GOP with southern secessionists.  There's some overlap, but they're not actually the same group, even in the south.

lohphat: ikanreed: Lincoln threw people in jail without trial, or even evidence.(during the war)  I can't say I approve of that then anymore than I did when Bush did it.

The difference is there was a declared war during Lincoln's presidency.


How is that a 'difference'?  Congress declared war in both Afghanistan and Iraq, assuming you're talking about Bush II.  Actually, Desert storm, too, so applies to Bush I as well.

H.R.J. Res. 77, S.J. Res. 23, and H.J. Res. 114, in order of date declared.

//Yes, formal declarations haven't been called "declarations of war" in the west for most of a century, but if you read them and can still call them anything other than that with a straight face you're so dense that you qualify as a neutron star.
 
2013-11-04 12:57:57 PM  

Kittypie070: [i.imgur.com image 442x679]

sense, this thread makes none, therefore pic not related


I haven't even really read the thread, but this pic is so full of awesome that it wins the thread.
 
2013-11-04 12:58:26 PM  

Ned Stark: culculhen: Ned Stark: the_vegetarian_cannibal: Ned Stark: That's totally wrong.

Why?

Because people do, in fact, have a right to govern themselves. How the people of Georgia choose to organize themselves is no business of Iowa's, even if a NW border makes selling corn there slightly harder.(they grow corn in Iowa, right?)


It's fun that for people arguing this point of state rights and declaring themselves principled and stalwart defenders of freedom always skip over the large class of people in those states who didn't get to choose how Georgia organized itself. And that the whole reason of claiming that freedom of secession was only to deny others all freedom.

I wonder why?

Because we are talking about theories of government not who should have won?

Some of us can acknowledge that our heros can be wrong about things without having an aneurysm over the "contradiction". Because we aren't 12.


No we're not talking about "theories of government", you are arguing that Lincoln was being undemocratic when he disallow Georgia to secede during the civil war. That the people of Georgia had the inherent right to do so, even though they were subjugating a whole race of people. Never allowing them the question of how they are organized.

So tell me, had a part of the people the Georgia the right to "reorganize" while holding the very Georgia people who would be against such an act in chattel slavery?

You know, even then "the people"of Georgia had more then one color. So why is only the opinion of people of a certain color of skin important to your argument, and not the others?
 
2013-11-04 01:01:08 PM  

Churchill2004: Arkanaut: suppose you could say that seceding from a dictatorship or antidemocratic state is better than the alternative.

Britain was by far the most liberal and democratic state on the planet in 1775.


But they still didn't grant a large percentage of their population a voice in their legislature.

//also, really? Not the Netherlands, or San Marino or something?
 
2013-11-04 01:08:33 PM  

JolobinSmokin: Weren't they called the democrat-republicans back in the day?


No, the Democrat-Republicans dissolved in 1825.
 
2013-11-04 01:26:57 PM  

culculhen: Ned Stark: culculhen: Ned Stark: the_vegetarian_cannibal: Ned Stark: That's totally wrong.

Why?

Because people do, in fact, have a right to govern themselves. How the people of Georgia choose to organize themselves is no business of Iowa's, even if a NW border makes selling corn there slightly harder.(they grow corn in Iowa, right?)


It's fun that for people arguing this point of state rights and declaring themselves principled and stalwart defenders of freedom always skip over the large class of people in those states who didn't get to choose how Georgia organized itself. And that the whole reason of claiming that freedom of secession was only to deny others all freedom.

I wonder why?

Because we are talking about theories of government not who should have won?

Some of us can acknowledge that our heros can be wrong about things without having an aneurysm over the "contradiction". Because we aren't 12.

No we're not talking about "theories of government", you are arguing that Lincoln was being undemocratic when he disallow Georgia to secede during the civil war. That the people of Georgia had the inherent right to do so, even though they were subjugating a whole race of people. Never allowing them the question of how they are organized.

So tell me, had a part of the people the Georgia the right to "reorganize" while holding the very Georgia people who would be against such an act in chattel slavery?

You know, even then "the people"of Georgia had more then one color. So why is only the opinion of people of a certain color of skin important to your argument, and not the others?


Except for the part where we covered exactly this point ~30 posts ago, yeah totally ignored.
 
2013-11-04 01:37:12 PM  
dem·o·crat

ˈdeməˌkrat/

noun

1.  an advocate or supporter of democracy.
2.  a member of the Democratic Party.

I'm thinking they meant definition #1.
 
2013-11-04 01:46:42 PM  

Arkanaut: Churchill2004: Arkanaut: suppose you could say that seceding from a dictatorship or antidemocratic state is better than the alternative.

Britain was by far the most liberal and democratic state on the planet in 1775.

But they still didn't grant a large percentage of their population a voice in their legislature.

//also, really? Not the Netherlands, or San Marino or something?


Fair enough, let me go back to you original point, though. The way I see it, we have a range of options:

1) Secession is inherently illegitimate
2) Secession without the consent of the seceding population is illegitimate
3) Secession without the consent of both the seceding population and the established national government is illegitimate.
4) Secession without the consent of the entire population, both within and without the seceding territory, via referendum, is illegitimate. 

Most democratic nations have settled on either 2 or 3- indeed #3 is a fair summary of the current American law under Texas v. White. I'm just saying that your argument tends to support those positions more than it supports 1, which seems to be how you were defining the result of your argument.
 
2013-11-04 01:53:23 PM  
Since the modern Republicans favor secession and claim that African Americans were better off as slaves, Lincoln must have been a Democrat.
 
2013-11-04 02:01:51 PM  
If Fark headlines are to be believed, this means Democrats are full of shiat.
 
2013-11-04 02:24:46 PM  
"We don't do Lincoln Day Dinners in South Carolina. It's nothing personal, but it takes a while to get over things."  --Lindsey Graham, R-SC
 
2013-11-04 02:31:16 PM  

Historical Significance of Frank Lloyd Wright Building at Northeastern Illinois University

The Carruthers Center for Inner City Studies at Northeastern Illinois University is housed in a building that bears historical significance. From time to time, the integrity of a plaque honoring the memory of Abraham Lincoln is questioned. Installed in the building for its opening in 1905, the plaque includes an inscription of the word "democrat" following Abraham Lincoln's name. According to building archives, the word democrat was used because Lincoln was an advocate for democracy-the political or social equality of all people. The word was not chosen to reflect a political affiliation.


http://www.neiu.edu/About%20NEIU/NEIU%20Newsroom/News/FY2013/ccics-p la que-statement.html
 
2013-11-04 02:47:53 PM  

Ned Stark: culculhen: Ned Stark: culculhen: Ned Stark: the_vegetarian_cannibal: Ned Stark: That's totally wrong.

Why?

Because people do, in fact, have a right to govern themselves. How the people of Georgia choose to organize themselves is no business of Iowa's, even if a NW border makes selling corn there slightly harder.(they grow corn in Iowa, right?)


It's fun that for people arguing this point of state rights and declaring themselves principled and stalwart defenders of freedom always skip over the large class of people in those states who didn't get to choose how Georgia organized itself. And that the whole reason of claiming that freedom of secession was only to deny others all freedom.

I wonder why?

Because we are talking about theories of government not who should have won?

Some of us can acknowledge that our heros can be wrong about things without having an aneurysm over the "contradiction". Because we aren't 12.

No we're not talking about "theories of government", you are arguing that Lincoln was being undemocratic when he disallow Georgia to secede during the civil war. That the people of Georgia had the inherent right to do so, even though they were subjugating a whole race of people. Never allowing them the question of how they are organized.

So tell me, had a part of the people the Georgia the right to "reorganize" while holding the very Georgia people who would be against such an act in chattel slavery?

You know, even then "the people"of Georgia had more then one color. So why is only the opinion of people of a certain color of skin important to your argument, and not the others?

Except for the part where we covered exactly this point ~30 posts ago, yeah totally ignored.


Yes and your answer was: "It does not seem relevant " I am asking you to explain why you think that black slaves were not part of "the people" of Georgia and were irrelevant to the question of freedom and how their government was organized. Not why Lincoln or slavery supporting Georgians thought that, but you. You are the defender of freedom and rights. Step up. Declare why during the question of  secession the opinion of 44% of the populace didn't matter because they were black.

Enlighten me. I dare you.
 
2013-11-04 03:02:03 PM  

Zasteva: dem·o·crat

ˈdeməˌkrat/

noun

1.  an advocate or supporter of democracy.
2.  a member of the Democratic Party.

I'm thinking they meant definition #1.


That would explain why Republicans hate them so much.
 
2013-11-04 03:05:48 PM  

Zasteva: The word was not chosen to reflect a political affiliation.


I really doubt it. References to "democracy" and "republicanism" abound in American politics, but it's almost unheard of to describe someone as a "democrat" or "republican" and mean it in the generic ideological sense. The dual definitions gives them just enough plausible deniability to get away with it, but the tail-twisting intent of the wording is still plain. It'd be like having a plaque honoring "Woodrow Wilson  Republican" on the grounds that Wilson wasn't a monarchist.
 
2013-11-04 03:06:04 PM  

culculhen: Ned Stark: culculhen: Ned Stark: culculhen: Ned Stark: the_vegetarian_cannibal: Ned Stark: That's totally wrong.

Why?

Because people do, in fact, have a right to govern themselves. How the people of Georgia choose to organize themselves is no business of Iowa's, even if a NW border makes selling corn there slightly harder.(they grow corn in Iowa, right?)


It's fun that for people arguing this point of state rights and declaring themselves principled and stalwart defenders of freedom always skip over the large class of people in those states who didn't get to choose how Georgia organized itself. And that the whole reason of claiming that freedom of secession was only to deny others all freedom.

I wonder why?

Because we are talking about theories of government not who should have won?

Some of us can acknowledge that our heros can be wrong about things without having an aneurysm over the "contradiction". Because we aren't 12.

No we're not talking about "theories of government", you are arguing that Lincoln was being undemocratic when he disallow Georgia to secede during the civil war. That the people of Georgia had the inherent right to do so, even though they were subjugating a whole race of people. Never allowing them the question of how they are organized.

So tell me, had a part of the people the Georgia the right to "reorganize" while holding the very Georgia people who would be against such an act in chattel slavery?

You know, even then "the people"of Georgia had more then one color. So why is only the opinion of people of a certain color of skin important to your argument, and not the others?

Except for the part where we covered exactly this point ~30 posts ago, yeah totally ignored.

Yes and your answer was: "It does not seem relevant " I am asking you to explain why you think that black slaves were not part of "the people" of Georgia and were irrelevant to the question of freedom and how their government was organized. Not why Lincoln or slavery supporting Georgians thought that, but you. You are the defender of freedom and rights. Step up. Declare why during the question of  secession the opinion of 44% of the populace didn't matter because they were black.

Enlighten me. I dare you.


Not relevant to the question of whether or not Lincoln was little d democrat. of course its relegated to what side you ought to take should it become relevant somehow.(watch out for those time portals bro first steps a doozy).

You seem to be reframing the discussion with every post.
 
2013-11-04 03:28:39 PM  
Nope, just holding you to your words. Lincoln was wrong and no "little d democrat" according to you for not adhering to the will of "the people" of the confederate south.

"He started a war to override popular will "
"Because people do, in fact, have a right to govern themselves. How the people of Georgia choose to organize themselves is no business of Iowa's"


Yes, the will of "the people" of the confederate south.  Except of course when they are black and slaves right? then they're not relevant. Not part of the populace, not part of "the people" You've declared, their popular will, their right to govern themselves is irrelevant to you. Why?

Why do you discount 44% of the population and only give agency and opinions to the white slavery supporters? Why are only they "the people" of Georgia? Why are only they the will of the populace?
 
2013-11-04 03:32:12 PM  

Churchill2004: Zasteva: The word was not chosen to reflect a political affiliation.

I really doubt it. References to "democracy" and "republicanism" abound in American politics, but it's almost unheard of to describe someone as a "democrat" or "republican" and mean it in the generic ideological sense. The dual definitions gives them just enough plausible deniability to get away with it, but the tail-twisting intent of the wording is still plain. It'd be like having a plaque honoring "Woodrow Wilson  Republican" on the grounds that Wilson wasn't a monarchist.


So you believe that Northwestern University lied about, or perhaps only misunderstood, the historical documents regarding the dedicationof the building in 1905?

And your belief is based on what exactly? Your deep knowledge of American Culture circa 1905?

You do know the common usage and event the meanings of words can change over the course of 100 years, don't you?
 
2013-11-04 03:36:27 PM  

Churchill2004: It'd be like having a plaque honoring "Woodrow Wilson  Republican" on the grounds that Wilson wasn't a monarchist.


No it wouldn't. It'd be like have a plaque honoring "Woodrow Wilson republican". When you capitalize it you change the meaning to a proper noun, i.e.: a member of the Republican Party.

If it's lowercase, it's more ambiguous in modern language, though really "Republican" or "Democrat" as in "Member of the Republican or Democratic Party" should always be capitalized. That's why it's abbreviated as "R" or "D" behind people's names.
 
2013-11-04 03:41:21 PM  

culculhen: Nope, just holding you to your words. Lincoln was wrong and no "little d democrat" according to you for not adhering to the will of "the people" of the confederate south.

"He started a war to override popular will "
"Because people do, in fact, have a right to govern themselves. How the people of Georgia choose to organize themselves is no business of Iowa's"

Yes, the will of "the people" of the confederate south.  Except of course when they are black and slaves right? then they're not relevant. Not part of the populace, not part of "the people" You've declared, their popular will, their right to govern themselves is irrelevant to you. Why?

Why do you discount 44% of the population and only give agency and opinions to the white slavery supporters? Why are only they "the people" of Georgia? Why are only they the will of the populace?


Lincoln was not for freeing slaves in any strong sense. We was actively against equality. He wanted to forcibly ship black people "back" to Africa, nevermind how many were born in America. On what plant are you living that that will net you credit as a crusader for democracy?
 
2013-11-04 03:43:53 PM  

lohphat: wildcardjack: lohphat: ikanreed: Lincoln threw people in jail without trial, or even evidence.(during the war)  I can't say I approve of that then anymore than I did when Bush did it.

The difference is there was a declared war during Lincoln's presidency.

No there wasn't. Wiki.

Ahem.


Read that again. A war is a lawful act, and a declaration of war is between sovereign powers. The declaration you provided is one denying that the confederacy is a sovereign power, and calling for the enforcement of American law on the rebels.
 
2013-11-04 03:53:06 PM  

Churchill2004: Zasteva: The word was not chosen to reflect a political affiliation.

I really doubt it. References to "democracy" and "republicanism" abound in American politics, but it's almost unheard of to describe someone as a "democrat" or "republican" and mean it in the generic ideological sense. The dual definitions gives them just enough plausible deniability to get away with it, but the tail-twisting intent of the wording is still plain. It'd be like having a plaque honoring "Woodrow Wilson  Republican" on the grounds that Wilson wasn't a monarchist.


Really? you think that 1905, democrats, with their then important roots in the deep south, general racism and the KKK wanted to claim Lincoln as their hero, only 40 years after the war? Are you joking?

Look the democrats really cleaned themselves up and the republicans really let themselves go around 1960, but nobody in 1905 would ever need to have that plaque explained. Nobody would've thought for a second that it would be related to party identification.

If Woodrow Wilson would've fought a civil war against a coalition of 13 kings ruling states and territories nobody would've batted their eyes at declaring the Democratic Woodrow Wilson a republican through and through.
 
2013-11-04 04:05:36 PM  

Ned Stark: culculhen: Nope, just holding you to your words. Lincoln was wrong and no "little d democrat" according to you for not adhering to the will of "the people" of the confederate south.

"He started a war to override popular will "
"Because people do, in fact, have a right to govern themselves. How the people of Georgia choose to organize themselves is no business of Iowa's"

Yes, the will of "the people" of the confederate south.  Except of course when they are black and slaves right? then they're not relevant. Not part of the populace, not part of "the people" You've declared, their popular will, their right to govern themselves is irrelevant to you. Why?

Why do you discount 44% of the population and only give agency and opinions to the white slavery supporters? Why are only they "the people" of Georgia? Why are only they the will of the populace?

Lincoln was not for freeing slaves in any strong sense. We was actively against equality. He wanted to forcibly ship black people "back" to Africa, nevermind how many were born in America. On what plant are you living that that will net you credit as a crusader for democracy?


Oh? so now he's not "small d democratic" because he didn't champion the anti-slavery cause enough? I live on the planet where the part you're skipping over actually counts: Lincoln did end up freeing the slaves and didn't end up shipping them forcibly back. It's fun to see the person who all through this thread that it didn't matter for democracy sake that slaves were disenfranchised is now attacking Lincoln as anti democratic for not taking their disenfranchisement more serious. It's a bit of a whiplash effect.

But you still have to declare why you think that the will and opinion black people of do not count in how the secession was "the will of the people"
 
2013-11-04 04:19:43 PM  

culculhen: Ned Stark: culculhen: Nope, just holding you to your words. Lincoln was wrong and no "little d democrat" according to you for not adhering to the will of "the people" of the confederate south.

"He started a war to override popular will "
"Because people do, in fact, have a right to govern themselves. How the people of Georgia choose to organize themselves is no business of Iowa's"

Yes, the will of "the people" of the confederate south.  Except of course when they are black and slaves right? then they're not relevant. Not part of the populace, not part of "the people" You've declared, their popular will, their right to govern themselves is irrelevant to you. Why?

Why do you discount 44% of the population and only give agency and opinions to the white slavery supporters? Why are only they "the people" of Georgia? Why are only they the will of the populace?

Lincoln was not for freeing slaves in any strong sense. We was actively against equality. He wanted to forcibly ship black people "back" to Africa, nevermind how many were born in America. On what plant are you living that that will net you credit as a crusader for democracy?

Oh? so now he's not "small d democratic" because he didn't champion the anti-slavery cause enough? I live on the planet where the part you're skipping over actually counts: Lincoln did end up freeing the slaves and didn't end up shipping them forcibly back. It's fun to see the person who all through this thread that it didn't matter for democracy sake that slaves were disenfranchised is now attacking Lincoln as anti democratic for not taking their disenfranchisement more serious. It's a bit of a whiplash effect.

But you still have to declare why you think that the will and opinion black people of do not count in how the secession was "the will of the people"


For the third or so time its not relevant to the question Lincoln's character you mouth farting ignoramus. "The group of voters is artificially small and therefore illegitimate" is a pretty good answer to have if you are ignoring the votes and still would like to be seen as a democrat. Actively opposing expansion of the vote kinda farks that angle all up.

Was calling Lincoln a hero not enough to clear up my thoughts on the matter?
 
2013-11-04 05:03:17 PM  

Ned Stark: culculhen: Ned Stark: culculhen: Nope, just holding you to your words. Lincoln was wrong and no "little d democrat" according to you for not adhering to the will of "the people" of the confederate south.

"He started a war to override popular will "
"Because people do, in fact, have a right to govern themselves. How the people of Georgia choose to organize themselves is no business of Iowa's"

Yes, the will of "the people" of the confederate south.  Except of course when they are black and slaves right? then they're not relevant. Not part of the populace, not part of "the people" You've declared, their popular will, their right to govern themselves is irrelevant to you. Why?

Why do you discount 44% of the population and only give agency and opinions to the white slavery supporters? Why are only they "the people" of Georgia? Why are only they the will of the populace?

Lincoln was not for freeing slaves in any strong sense. We was actively against equality. He wanted to forcibly ship black people "back" to Africa, nevermind how many were born in America. On what plant are you living that that will net you credit as a crusader for democracy?

Oh? so now he's not "small d democratic" because he didn't champion the anti-slavery cause enough? I live on the planet where the part you're skipping over actually counts: Lincoln did end up freeing the slaves and didn't end up shipping them forcibly back. It's fun to see the person who all through this thread that it didn't matter for democracy sake that slaves were disenfranchised is now attacking Lincoln as anti democratic for not taking their disenfranchisement more serious. It's a bit of a whiplash effect.

But you still have to declare why you think that the will and opinion black people of do not count in how the secession was "the will of the people"

For the third or so time its not relevant to the question Lincoln's character you mouth farting ignoramus. "The group of voters is artificially small and therefore illegit ...


To be honest after all this bullshiatting you've been doing on this tread I'm amazed that you can even pretend to have any thoughts at all. Look at least try to keep it together enough to remain a semblance of reading comprehension o.k? I know it's hard for you and I feel like I have to teach a 3 year old history but here, lets try it again:

You claimed that Lincoln was no "small d democrat" because he hurt the poor wittle white people of Georgia wittle fee-fees when he didn't let them secede because they had the "will of the people"

Now there are two way this can go: either you accept all of the constraints that the relevant laws that regulate the democracy you're in. In that case the votes of the Georgians was inconsequential because it didn't conform to the laws. And Lincoln was a small democrat.

Or, "the will of the people" matters intrinsic and the fact that the confederates didn't have popular legitimacy and Lincoln didn't violate any small d democratic principle.

Now all over this tread you've been laying turds instead of coherent arguments. I don't care what you opinion is of Lincoln. It's poorly argued and overlooks what he actually did in the end, which was the opposite of your argument of why we should declare him "no little d democrat". I took you to task of your moronic argument regarding the will of the people in the secession of Georgia.

Do you still believe that the secession was "the will of the people" and if so why don't you count 44% blacks among "the people"? I've asked you that the last handful of comments and you've been dodging it.

Was the secession the legitimate will of the people? If not why the hell do you keep arguing that it was?

Man the fark up and just take a stand.
 
2013-11-04 05:20:48 PM  
Oh man that's a big pile right there.

Hold that thought till after work hours. Gonna need more than the mobile page to untangled that morass.
 
2013-11-04 07:22:30 PM  

culculhen: You claimed that Lincoln was no "small d democrat" because he hurt the poor wittle white people of Georgia wittle fee-fees when he didn't let them secede because they had the "will of the people"


Yes, ignoring votes general means you aren't very democratic.

Now there are two way this can go: either you accept all of the constraints that the relevant laws that regulate the democracy you're in.

Such as the laws governing who can vote in the confederate states? Yeah, if you accept those than shooting them all to make em stay around seems pretty anti-democratic.

Or, "the will of the people" matters intrinsic and the fact that the confederates didn't have popular legitimacy

Yes, that's an excellent theory of democracy. Oddly enough, Lincoln hasn't changed his mind since we started this thread and is still against it.

 I don't care what you opinion is of Lincoln.

Why the fark are we 14 posts into a discussion of you getting massively butthurt about it then?

overlooks what he actually did in the end,
overlooks it except for the ~three times or so I called him a hero for what he did.

which was the opposite of your argument of why we should declare him "no little d democrat".
Howzat?


I took you to task of your moronic argument regarding the will of the people in the secession of Georgia.
The one from the sidebar with vegetarian_cannibal about succession as a general principal which you immediately backed off of?

Do you still believe that the secession was "the will of the people"? I've asked you that the last handful of comments and you've been dodging it. Was the secession the legitimate will of the people? If not why the hell do you keep arguing that it was?

blah blah your opinion blah. Weren't you really wound up to talk about Lincoln when you whargled your way in here?

Man the fark up and just take a stand.

Hand me a torch and point me to Atlanta!
 
2013-11-05 01:11:26 AM  

StubhyGraham: [4.bp.blogspot.com image 850x674]


Dude, where the barking frak did you find that abomination!?
 
2013-11-05 02:51:47 AM  
It's funny how Republicans love to claim Lincoln because of his popularity, but if he were actually a politician today they'd be against him for being a flaming liberal.
 
2013-11-05 03:13:26 AM  
Look, please pull the stick of retardation out of your backside. And try to form a coherent thought for once.

It might make you feel good to pretend that I was here to defend Lincoln but seeing that my reply to you that started all this for expressing annoyance at yet another hypocritical defender of secession and freedom it just makes you a damn fool.

The people voting in the south didn't have the power to vote themselves out under the laws that governed their democracy. So when they did and then started shooting at the federal government it was them that weren't small d democrats.

The idea that not acceding to something the states had no democratic power by law to do is anti democratic is idiotic.

However you also argued that slave states had the moral right to secede because it was the popular will of the people. Which is only true if you ignored all of the black populace. So in both cases the slave states had no democratic rights to secede. Regarding both the natural or the legalistic democratic case

If you actually had any reading comprehension you would have noticed that I kept bringing back to you, your arguments and what your thoughts about the legitimacy of secession by slave state Georgia. You mewling how much of a personal hero that old anti-small-d-democrat Lincoln is doesn't make any difference. My problem has always been with your dumbfark arguments using both legalistic and moralistic reasons as why it was ok for the slave states to secede.

That is why I keep asking you the same question. Not because I'm not defending Lincoln as much as pointing out that your argument is pants on head retarded.

Legalistic nor morally was there ever a small d democratic case for secession by the slave states. In your arguments you've been using both rationales. They are dumb and you should feel dumb for using them.

I have asked you time and time again to either defend the moral democracy argument you've been making from the start or to denounce it and make your hopeless stand on the legality of it, which has been settled against your argument for ages now. But just have the balls to stop dodging between them.
 
2013-11-05 04:40:13 PM  

Zasteva: No it wouldn't. It'd be like have a plaque honoring "Woodrow Wilson republican". When you capitalize it you change the meaning to a proper noun, i.e.: a member of the Republican Party.

If it's lowercase, it's more ambiguous in modern language, though really "Republican" or "Democrat" as in "Member of the Republican or Democratic Party" should always be capitalized. That's why it's abbreviated as "R" or "D" behind people's names.


The plaque in question is all-caps.
 
2013-11-05 05:00:24 PM  

Churchill2004: Zasteva: No it wouldn't. It'd be like have a plaque honoring "Woodrow Wilson republican". When you capitalize it you change the meaning to a proper noun, i.e.: a member of the Republican Party.

If it's lowercase, it's more ambiguous in modern language, though really "Republican" or "Democrat" as in "Member of the Republican or Democratic Party" should always be capitalized. That's why it's abbreviated as "R" or "D" behind people's names.

The plaque in question is all-caps.


Yes, it is. So what? I was responding to this:

"Churchill2004: It'd be like having a plaque honoring "Woodrow Wilson  Republican" on the grounds that Wilson wasn't a monarchist."

I was specifically calling attention the the capital R, as everyone who read that understood.

Man up and admit you were wrong, instead of deliberately hiding your mistake and leaving it out of your reply.
 
Displayed 115 of 115 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report