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  
•       •       •

1783 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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
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So you believe that Northwestern University lied about, or perhaps only misunderstood, the historical documents regarding the dedicationof the building in 1905?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 15 of 115 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


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