More Hateful Posturing

Surely you believe people can change.

After all, no one claims that George Bush is a playboy crackhead anymore. (ok, well I do )

As for the procedure of confirmation, I hardly see how that is a problem. So Democrats want to go through the process of law. That is why they are there after all.

To frame it in that context is rather typical. We could run down the laundry list of Republicans who had difficulty dealing with the end to segregation as well.

Next thing you know we will have an adulterous Republican House Leader pushing forward a moral contract with America! It's crazy.

I wonder which government agency funded that NewsMax article.

Probably the Senate Foreign Relations committee
People still overwhelming you with niceties down there in Cackalackie ? I hope so, welcome home to Dixie

Yeppers...even Lincoln himself was unsure of his stance on slavery....

"I will say then that I am not, nor have I ever been in the favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races . . . There must be a position of superior and inferior, and I... am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race ... I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position that the negroe should be deprived everything." Abraham Lincoln Lincoln-Douglas debate at Charleston on September 18, 1858

Though that has nothing to do with Condee and those who bring it up in the light this lying wench being confirmed are only looking to justify the evils done by her and the administration she chooses to follow.

Thank God For George W. Bush.. ReElected for another 1,461 days.

Sounds to me like Lincoln changed his tune 5 years later...


"That on the 1st day of January, A.D. 1863, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom. "

"That the executive will on the 1st day of January aforesaid, by proclamation, designate the States and parts of States, if any, in which the people thereof, respectively, shall then be in rebellion against the United States; and the fact that any State or the people thereof shall on that day be in good faith represented in the Congress of the United States by members chosen thereto at elections wherein a majority of the qualified voters of such States shall have participated shall, in the absence of strong countervailing testimony, be deemed conclusive evidence that such State and the people thereof are not then in rebellion against the United States."

Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander-In-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority and government of the United States, and as a fit and necessary war measure for supressing said rebellion, do, on this 1st day of January, A.D. 1863, and in accordance with my purpose so to do, publicly proclaimed for the full period of one hundred days from the first day above mentioned, order and designate as the States and parts of States wherein the people thereof, respectively, are this day in rebellion against the United States the following, to wit:

Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana (except the parishes of St. Bernard, Palquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James, Ascension, Assumption, Terrebone, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the city of New Orleans), Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia (except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkeley, Accomac, Morthhampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Anne, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth), and which excepted parts are for the present left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued.

And by virtue of the power and for the purpose aforesaid, I do order and declare that all persons held as slaves within said designated States and parts of States are, and henceforward shall be, free; and that the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of said persons.

And I hereby enjoin upon the people so declared to be free to abstain from all violence, unless in necessary self-defence; and I recommend to them that, in all case when allowed, they labor faithfully for reasonable wages.

And I further declare and make known that such persons of suitable condition will be received into the armed service of the United States to garrison forts, positions, stations, and other places, and to man vessels of all sorts in said service.

And upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of justice, warranted by the Constitution upon military necessity, I invoke the considerate judgment of mankind and the gracious favor of Almighty God


Abraham Lincoln
The Emancipation Proclamation (1863)

Democrats just want to get their names in the paper so they can tell their hippie voters back home that they "Tried So Hard" to stick it to the President, but are fighting an uphill battle. So when election time for that Senator is back on the line, they can pander to the liberal leftist out there...

Its all politics and the Democrats are playing their cards, because they hold about as much power in Washington as a Frenchmen. lol

When it benefited his agenda....

"I am not in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office." (September 15, 1858, - campaign speech)
"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery." (March 4, 1861, - First Inaugural Address)
"I am a little uneasy about the abolishment of slavery in this District of Columbia." ( March 24, 1862, - letter to Horace Greeley)
"If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it." (August 22, 1862, - letter to Horace Greeley, New York Tribune editor)

Some turn around...Lincoln was fighting to preserve the Union. He used the slavery issue because the majority of folks were not slave owners and would therefor find it unjust to own a slave (which it is). You are gravely mistaken in your argument if you think that simply using the Emancipation Proclimation negates Lincoln's former thoughts on the subject. I was simply saying that a man did what ended in a good deed in order to supress the true reasons for the war. The outcome was beneficial to human rights but it was the death of states rights. Then again you will not likely understand that argument, so I digress for fear that by the time I finish I would have written a thesis and Condee just isn't worth it.

This has to do with a liar being confirmed. This is not a Pub or Lib issue it is an American Issue so get the hell of the cross boy somebody may need the wood.

Hmmm, maybe you missed the fact that Sen. Byrd is (oh horrors) a Democrat. Also, your tone fits quite nicely with the adjective I used in the thread title. Thanks for making me smile at the ironing.

I can't figure out how Robert Byrd has stayed a Senator as long as he has. Then again the fact that the Chief Justice of the United States, William Rehnquist is a known racist also boggles the mind. There are no excuses for Robert Byrd or William Rehnquist. One can only hope that some day people who think like this will be weeded out of the political arena. But I doubt it.

OTOH - I think that more senators should have questioned Dr. Rice's qualifications based on her past performance (or lack thereof). When one is asked hard questions, it is convenient to revert into the "How dare you question my character" stance but that hardly addressed the tough questions that Senator Boxer asked.

Really - I want to know:

Why did the United States go to war in Iraq based on misleading -- if not false and fraudulent -- evidence?

Why did we divert valuable resources and intelligence personnel to Iraq, taking them away from Afghanistan and the pursuit of Osama bin Laden?

Why did she mislead the American people into thinking there was a connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaida before September 11th?

They are not partisan questions and before we send anymore of our children to Iraq - I really would like to know.

Oh and.... Where the f*ck is Osama and why have we not focused on his capture?

So "Flip-flopping" is okay then? XD

Heheheh Sen. Byrd, the Ex-Klansman.. Hehehehehehe

Rose I would love to answer some if not all of your questions but I haven't bothered to research the whole matter that was going on back then. I was extremely busy as of December 26, 2002 (yes we were called back from Xmas leave) preparing my brigade for railload out to South Texas for shipping to Kuwait. I didn't mean to bring up these issues with this post though they are valid and I may spend some time looking into them in retrospect as I would like to understand why it happened this way as well. I agree, Osama should be in shackles at the least beside Saddam. I will speak heresy now against my fellow Pub. brethren and say I believe the Iraq thing was simply a vendetta and retribution for Daddy Bush. Saying that I will also state I firmly believe and support the fact that we needed to take him out and should've done it back in the '90s.

The response to my thread by a previous person amused me because I sought to underline the hatred and division in this country and I succeeded. Hugs to you my Favorite person on the other side of the fence

I don't really have to posture...somebody keeps voting the asses into office but it wasn't me. I, for one, hate Byrd but then again I hate pretty much every politician including democrats and republicans. The wrong doings or incorrect ideology of one old moron does not lessen the wrong doings and lies of a young moron. Take it how you want it...I was responding to the fact that politicians will change their song so long as it promotes their true agenda. You are assuming that I am some lib with a hard on for anything that pubs do which is incorrect. I just happen to have a distain for liars and manipulators and call them like I see them.

Hehe, another reason we need purple states. Nice one Lance

Only if your a GOP Party Member. lol..

That would be funny if you didn't actually believe it.

Very well, apologies for the assumption. Your response just sounded a bit off the cuff and hateful at first glance. I agree with what you have said above, and thank you for clarifying.

The only non-partisan person was George Washington. Every President after him was partisan..

Heheheheh.... Your the coolest Lance.. Heheheh

I thought I just had one too many beers....

Those crazy West Virginians love Sen. Byrd. There is a grandscale Interstate being built in WVA right now called "Byrd Highway". And you know those damn WVAers don't need that road. Heheheheh But as long as they vote Red for Presidents, I'll support their road and Byrd. LOL

And, Alby, what is partisan to you?

Quite funny that you support a known bigot just because he votes on your party line....gives me the insight needed to just ignore any further posts.

Wow, that is an intelligent response to the current debate. Thank you I can see this thread will digress as the rest of them have.