The stunning decline of obama

• gibby08

  

  I Wear Pants;453582 wrote:Abraham Lincoln's policies would be torn to shreds by the current Republicans and conservatives.

  
  Agreed...Lincoln would be considered a liberal now
• ts1227

  

  gibby08;453655 wrote:Agreed...Lincoln would be considered a liberal now

  pretty much.
• GeneralsIcer89

  Personally, I don't think it mattered who became president in the last election. Any of those candidates was doomed to fail.
• believer

  

  I Wear Pants;453582 wrote:Abraham Lincoln's policies would be torn to shreds by the current Republicans and conservatives.

  If you mean Lincoln was all about centralized Federal Big Government control rather than states rights to run their own affairs I agree.
  
  But somehow I doubt Lincoln would have agreed with ObamaKare, our border/illegal immigration policies, Social Security, Medicare, etc., etc. etc.......
• gut

  believer;453850 wrote:If you mean Lincoln was all about centralized Federal Big Government control rather than states rights to run their won affairs I agree.
  
  But somehow I doubt Lincoln would have agreed with ObamaKare, our border/illegal immigration policies, Social Security, Medicare, etc., etc. etc.......

  
  Amnesty & citizenship.....it's going to be Obama's only hope of being re-elected. Heck, he might even fancy himself a modern day Lincoln!
• QuakerOats

  gibby08;453655 wrote:Agreed...Lincoln would be considered a liberal now

  
  I think not; I am not sure how you could possibly arrive at such a conclusion.
  
  Republican National Platform -- adopted at Chicago, 1860:
  
  http://www.conservativewordsmith.com/2010/01/republicans-yesterday-and-today.html
• jhay78

  

  QuakerOats;453976 wrote:I think not; I am not sure how you could possibly arrive at such a conclusion.
  
  Republican National Platform -- adopted at Chicago, 1860:
  
  http://www.conservativewordsmith.com/2010/01/republicans-yesterday-and-today.html

  
  Thank you- I was getting a little tired of the oversimplification of Lincoln being a big government guy out to pry rights away from the states. I've come to view the Civil War as between the states (North & South), not between the states and Federal government.
• believer

  

  jhay78;454049 wrote:Thank you- I was getting a little tired of the oversimplification of Lincoln being a big government guy out to pry rights away from the states. I've come to view the Civil War as between the states (North & South), not between the states and Federal government.

  It was a war between the states to be sure but the premise behind it was - like it or not - federalism vs. states rights. Did the northern states have the right constitutionally to dictate economic principles to the southern states? In a sense it was indeed a war between SOME states and the Federal government.
  
  The immorality of human slavery notwithstanding, tens of thousands of Americans died at the hands of fellow Americans over federalism vs. states rights. The sad thing is the issue of slavery would have come to a relatively swift, natural and just end with the rapid rise of technologies inherent to industrialism.
  
  While school history books want us to believe the war was fought over the moral issue of slavery, political reality is it was fought over economics and disagreement on the scope and power of the Federal government.
  
  The more things "change" the more they stay the same.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  Believer,
  

  While school history books want us to believe the war was fought over the moral issue of slavery, political reality is it was fought over economics and disagreement on the scope and power of the Federal government.

  
  
  The thing is, the south's economics was totally wrapped up in slavery; sugar, cotton, tobacco, etc. Slavery was involved in their economic, the trade, social and religious spheres. And of course only the people with money had slaves (middle and upper classes and even some "poor" folks had some slaves), but they were also the people with ALL the political power.
  
  I'm not arguing that slavery would not have come to an end on it's own, because I believe it would have, also.
  What I'm saying is that the whole of the "south's" existence was integrated in slavery.
  
  But, I digress and really, the slavery issue is for another thread
  ........................
  
  Obama is still on the bottom rung according to my own personal status ladder!
• jmog

  ernest_t_bass;450327 wrote:I'm not going to lie, and you can call me what you want. I think one of the main reasons that no one has faith in him is because the American people (deep down) have a hard time trusting a black man, who comments on basketball, March Madness, etc, as our President. You read that out loud, and you think it's absurd, be we are watching this guys EVERY move, just waiting for him to fail, so we can have some affirmation that we were right. I don't think he ever had a chance, and I don't think he stands a chance in the next two years. I won't give the man a chance now, and I have no desire to do so in the future. Nothing in me wants to support him.

  
  You can't be serious. If American's were that racist that they couldn't trust a black man, they wouldn't have voted him in, period.
  
  That could possibly be the dumbest thing I've read on the political forums, and that's saying a TON because there are a ton of stupid stuff typed here.
  
  There are many black conservatives I would love to see as President, it had nothing to do with the color of the man's skin, but all to do with the content of his character and ideals.
• jmog

  Paladin;451462 wrote:You missed reading my remarks correctly -- in tough economic times it would be highly unusual for a Prez NOT to decline. The key is, he remains highly favored ( relatively) with the public compared to the Rs , who are at the pits in approval with the public. Even the D politicos are ranked higher than Rs. When you break out the Independents, the same applies. Only with the Rs is Obama truly ranked low ( go figure,lol). What does that say ? LOL ! No one is arguing he hasn't fallen, but in comparasion, he is doing great in tough times compared to the Rs or the Ds. Join the yellers & screamers, who make lots of noise ,but don't affect the polling at all . The Rs remain a regional party strong with Southern ,conservative, religious whites and elsewhere, its a mixed bag with demographics working against the R party. They have no plan, they promote nothing but fear & hate and they are against women, gays, minorities, labor, the young, the elderly and now immigrants . And thats a winning formula as the population of all those people grow ? I'm not sure what you are smoking but..................

  
  Wow, this thread has had the dumbest post (America hates black people, that's why Obama has been slipping), now we have the dumbest poster...
  
  
  Come on Paladin, republicans hate women, gays, inorities, labor, young, immigrants, elderly...
  
  A republican president signed the Emancipation Proclimation, they don't like ILLEGAL immigration, no republican says a word about LEGAL immigration.
  
  The Rs are the ones trying to actually bring back business to help labor, the Ds are just creating more government.
  
  The young? Come on, mos Rs are against abortion (the young) most Ds are for it.
  
  You can't be serious with your crap.
• jmog

  I Wear Pants;453582 wrote:Abraham Lincoln's policies would be torn to shreds by the current Republicans and conservatives.

  
  You're full of crap with that one.
• believer

  

  CenterBHSFan;454499 wrote:The thing is, the south's economics was totally wrapped up in slavery; sugar, cotton, tobacco, etc. Slavery was involved in their economic, the trade, social and religious spheres. And of course only the people with money had slaves (middle and upper classes and even some "poor" folks had some slaves), but they were also the people with ALL the political power.

  I know this is not on topic but to your point I basically acknowledged that slavery was the morality underlying the economic issue. But slavery itself was not the true political reason for the Civil War. Again it came down to - as usual - economics and disagreement over the scope and power of the federal government.
  
  With regard to Obama, I see him on a personal level a decent family man but his socialist political agenda will mean the end of One Party rule in 75 long, excruciating days. I wonder just how much more damage the BHO-Reid-Pelosi Triad can do in that time frame?
• CenterBHSFan

  

  believer;454835 wrote:I know this is not on topic but to your point I basically acknowledged that slavery was the morality underlying the economic issue. But slavery itself was not the true political reason for the Civil War. Again it came down to - as usual - economics and disagreement over the scope and power of the federal government.

  Ok, but what were the reasons behind the disagreements and economic issues?
  All I'm saying is that slavery was the destination. Catchwords like "economics and states's rights" were just the vehicles.
• jhay78

  

  believer;454835 wrote:I know this is not on topic but to your point I basically acknowledged that slavery was the morality underlying the economic issue. But slavery itself was not the true political reason for the Civil War. Again it came down to - as usual - economics and disagreement over the scope and power of the federal government.

  
  Didn't the first southern states to secede do so immediately upon Lincoln's election? And he stated multiple times he was not about to use federal power to eliminate slavery in the South, only to limit its expansion into new territories.
  Anyway, I appreciate your comments on the subject- I'm still sorting out a lot of this for myself.
  
  Back to the thread topic- Obama sucks.
• Belly35

  

  Because the Blacks are start to listening and understanding?
  ……Democrats are not your friend……….. Chump
  
  [video=youtube;7BYVv4LY_KQ][/video]
• believer

  

  jhay78;455059 wrote:Didn't the first southern states to secede do so immediately upon Lincoln's election? And he stated multiple times he was not about to use federal power to eliminate slavery in the South, only to limit its expansion into new territories.

  It is true that the southern states seceded upon the election of Lincoln. Lincoln's initial goal may have been to "appease" the south by looking the other way on slavery for the moment within the states themselves while limiting slavery's expansion into the western territories. But his election sent a signal to the southern states that the ultimate goal of the Federal government was to interfere in the affairs of the states (IE: their agrarian based economy built upon slavery). Northerners viewed the war as a referendum on the slavery issue. Southerners viewed it as an over-reach of federal authority.
  
  The south quite frankly made a significant error in choosing to secede. While they were remarkably successful at the onset of the war, they were ultimately doomed to failure by the sheer numbers and industrial might of the north. Had the south chosen to remain in the Union, slavery would probably have lasted 2 or 3 more decades before being phased out naturally by changes in farming technologies. In other words there would have been higher profits in technology based farming rather than slavery.
  
  The Civil War simply hastened the inevitable at the cost of tens of thousands of American lives.