Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: 150 years ago today Our greatest President took an early step towards Fairness & Freedom for all the 99%

Posted 2 years ago on Sept. 22, 2012, 9:29 a.m. EST by VQkag2 (16478)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

http://thetandd.com/news/opinion/lincoln-s-preliminary-emancipation-proclamation-of-sept-and-the-course/article_d27aed9c-0440-11e2-9349-0019bb2963f4.html

Lincoln’s Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation of Sept. 22, 1862, and the course of U.S. history

Dr. Stanley Harrold

One hundred and fifty years ago, during the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln issued his Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation on Sept. 22, 1862. This proclamation warned the Confederate states that if they remained in rebellion against the U.S. on Jan. 1, 1863, Lincoln (as commander in chief) would on that day declare all slaves to be free in areas under Confederate control. The preliminary proclamation thereby became an important part of a series of events that changed the nature of the Civil War, revised the meaning of the U.S. Constitution and altered the course of American and especially African-American history. It is a story that goes well beyond Lincoln.

As ratified in 1788, the U.S. Constitution supported the enslavement of African-Americans. The three-fifths clause gave masters enhanced representation in Congress and the Electoral College. The fugitive slave clause provided that slaves who escaped across state lines would not become free. Instead they would be returned to their masters.

But growing Northern opposition to slavery, and Northern resistance to the return of escaping slaves, undermined white Southern support of the Union. Starting with South Carolina in December 1860, 11 lower South and middle South states seceded. They did so because the great majority of their citizens believed the U.S. government under newly elected Republican President Lincoln would seek to end slavery throughout the country. In February 1861, the Confederate States of America came into being. Yet Lincoln and his party had not called for ending slavery in the Southern states. They only opposed the expansion of slavery. Lincoln and his party in 1860 and 1861 did not stand for emancipation, black citizenship or black rights. In fact from 1860 into 1862, Lincoln enforced the Fugitive Slave Law. He feared that if he did not, the border slave states of Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri would leave the Union and join the Confederacy.

Well into 1862, Lincoln insisted that the North fought the Civil War not to free the slaves but only to restore the Union to what it had been before December 1860. Lincoln believed he had to maintain this limited goal in order to keep the border slave states loyal, and to avoid angering Northern Democrats who supported the war to preserve the Union but not a war to end slavery.

It is true that Lincoln disliked slavery. In 1858 he recognized the right of free black people to earn a living and to acquire property on an equal basis with white people. By early 1862 he supported emancipating the 3,000 or so slaves in the District of Columbia. He signed a bill to end slavery in all U.S. territories. But in early 1862, Lincoln had a very conservative vision for emancipation in the South and for black rights. He suggested that loyal slave states of Delaware, Maryland and Kentucky adopt state-level plans that would very gradually free all slaves within their borders. He suggested that the plans could go into operation as late as 1900. He did not believe black citizenship would work as a general proposition. He wanted emancipated slaves to leave the United States for Africa, Haiti or Central America.

Yet long-term forces favored black freedom and citizenship. The European Enlightenment that peaked during the 18th century began the idea that (as they said at the time) all men have natural rights to life, liberty and property. Enlightenment ideas inspired Great Britain’s 1833 abolition of slavery in its empire; France followed in 1848. Much earlier a movement to end slavery emerged in the American Northeast. Its supporters included African-Americans, Quakers and some other white people affected by Enlightenment principles. By 1804 every Northeastern state had adopted an emancipation plan. But relatively few slaves lived in the Northeast. Anti-black racism continued to exist in the region, and outside New England few black men could vote.

Later the abolition movement grew stronger and aimed south. Abolitionists became more radical. Starting in the 1830s, under the leadership of William Lloyd Garrison, Frederick Douglass and others, they called for immediate emancipation. They advocated equal rights for African-Americans in the United States. Unlike Lincoln and most Republicans, abolitionists opposed sending former slaves out of the country. From the start of the Civil War, abolitionists lobbied Lincoln to have Union armies fight for emancipation as well as to preserve the Union. Radical Republicans in Congress came close to the abolitionists on emancipation and black rights.

Ordinary free black people and slaves pushed toward emancipation. Early in the war, black men attempted without success to enlist in Union armies. Their actions encouraged abolitionists to link black enlistment with calls to make emancipation a Union war goal. In effect abolitionists pointed the way to the Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation. Meanwhile, slaves escaping to Union lines pressed on Union army officers the issue of their status.

Black and abolitionist pressure for emancipation coexisted with a war that encouraged that pressure. As slavery caused the Civil War, the war in turn created circumstances favorable to action for emancipation. Union battlefield failures through 1862 enhanced these circumstances. In response to repeated defeats, Douglass, other abolitionists and Radical Republicans insisted that to defeat the Confederacy, the Union had to make emancipation a war aim backed by black soldiers. The Union, in Douglass’ words, had to “unchain against her foes her powerful black hand.” Union generals, especially David Hunter in South Carolina in May 1862, pressed the issue of enlisting former slaves into Union armies. Lincoln ordered Hunter to back off. But Lincoln came to realize that he might need black men to fight for the Union, and that meant fighting the war for emancipation.

Other events pushed toward the Preliminary Proclamation. In July 1862 Congress amended the Militia Act of 1793 and passed the Second Confiscation Act. These actions anticipated the Preliminary Proclamation and encouraged it. The Militia Act amendment authorized the enlistment of black men into Union armies and provided for freedom to those enlisted. The Second Confiscation Act declared “forever free” slaves of masters in rebellion against the U.S. It specifically empowered Lincoln to enlist back soldiers.

Yet Lincoln still preferred state-level gradual emancipation over immediate military emancipation. If any of the border slave states had accepted his suggestion that they undertake gradual emancipation, he may never have moved toward general emancipation in the Confederacy. Therefore the Border States’ rejection, during the summer of 1862, of state-level gradual abolition constituted another turning point toward the Preliminary Proclamation. When these states refused to do as Lincoln wanted, he began to consider immediate emancipation by federal action in the Confederacy.

Paradoxically the same Union battlefield failures that made an emancipation decree attractive led Lincoln to postpone issuing the Preliminary Proclamation. On July 22, Lincoln proposed to his cabinet to announce that he would on January 1, 1863 declare free all slaves within Confederate controlled areas, unless those areas returned to the Union before that date. In response, Secretary of State William Seward warned Lincoln that such a declaration, following a series of Union battle-field defeats, would suggest weakness rather than principle. As a result, Lincoln decided to await a Union battlefield victory before issuing the Preliminary Proclamation.

That victory came at the Battle of Antietam, fought near Sharpsburg, Md., on Sept. 17, 1863. Antietam was not so decisive a victory as Lincoln wanted. But he considered it enough of a victory to allow him to issue the Preliminary Proclamation. As previously mentioned, that proclamation on September 22 gave each Confederate state a choice: return to the Union by Jan. 1, 1863, or face emancipation of its slaves. The Preliminary Proclamation also stated that black men would on Jan. 1 become eligible to be combat soldiers in Union armies.

Lincoln, and nearly everyone else, knew on Sept. 22, 1862, that the Confederates would not, as a result of these threats, give up fighting a war they intended to win. Therefore Sept. 22 may have been the date when a war for emancipation and the large-scale employment of black troops became inevitable. In this sense, the Final Emancipation Proclamation that Lincoln signed on Jan. 1, 1863, was anticlimactic. It included a long quotation from the Preliminary Proclamation. It declared that about 3 million enslaved African-Americans “are and henceforth shall be free.” It ordered the U.S. armed forces to protect that freedom. It authorized the enlistment of black men into Union armies.

Critics at the time and since have pointed out that the Final Proclamation did not affect slavery in the border slave states, or in portions of the Confederacy occupied by Union troops. Yet, with the Final Proclamation, slavery could not survive in the Border South. More important, from Jan. 1, 1863, onward, Northern troops fought for black freedom as well as preservation of the Union. Slaves became free immediately as Union armies advanced into Confederate territory. The war to restore the Union as it had been before December 1860 ended on Jan. 1, 1863. An old U.S. Constitution that recognized slavery died; a new Constitution that recognized black freedom stirred to life. The Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments formalized this change. Black freedom suffered a terrible setback as Reconstruction ended in failure. It took the mid-20th-century’s civil rights movement to revive that freedom and extend it.

75 Comments

75 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by TXKIM (2) 2 years ago

The Republican Party keeps screaming about there's no money so we have to slash benefits of our poor and middle class. They continue to call them freeloaders and say Mr Romney is correct. They dont realize how many of them do not actually pay income tax but payroll tax. They dont know what tax deductions /gov. dole benefits like child credit, earned income credit, home deductions, they actually get. They think that when they get their "refund check" its truly just because they have overpaid their taxes and nothing more. When they think of gov. dole they only think of food stamp frauders (which may be a myth just as the 47% or the voters fraud). They need to be educated. They are voting against their own self interest and this is why.

This is A WAR on the middle class. .Warren Buffett, a billionaire, has said, There’s class warfare, all right. But it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, & we’re winning.” The wealthiest 1% now own about 40% of the nation's wealth. We paid for the bailouts and now we are stuck with the bill. The top 2% have enjoyed special tax breaks of 4% for over 10 years that Bush put in place. All we want is for those tax cuts to go back to where they were. We are talking about the top 2% of the wealthiest people and 4% in taxes that Bush decreased which is just another way Republican policies got into this debt mess and so many families ended up on gov. welfare in form or another in the first place. Here is a fun little factoid from Bruce Bartlett, who served in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations, writing in The New York Times: : "During the 1990s, about 24% of filers had no income tax liability, but this number took a big jump during the Bush Administration as Republicans added a large child credit to the tax code. The percentage of filers with no income tax liability rose to 36.3% in 2008, from 25.2% in 2000." The working people who don’t pay income tax, that is by and large the result of Republican policies,” said Michael Linden, director of tax and budget policy at the Center for American Progress, BUT the top 2% who are driving the Republican party don't want that so they scare us with all this BS about big gov., redistribution, etc. Money is redistributing alright but from the bottom up not the top down. We don’t want our child credit, earned income credit, social security, VA benefits, Medicaid/Medicare, house deductions slashed and taxes raised on the middle class so the top 2% wealthiest can enjoy more Corporate WELFARE! (which most Americans do not even realizes exist or what they are) They also scare us with lies saying if you tax the rich then it will be bad for the economy but these ALL LIES too. • President Clinton, taxed the wealthy. Many Republicans said this would lead to a recession, "kill jobs," & so increase the federal deficit. (sound familiar?) This tax increase resulted in: US's longest peacetime economic expansion 23 million new jobs in 8 years increase in the median household income by $6000 over 8 years federal spending cuts of 3.2% of GDP high tax revenue, elimination of federal deficit, & the first surpluses in 40 years, and low inflation Further, Its the Democrats not the Republicans who created jobs, increased wealth and decreased debt: Almost 2/1 private sector JOBS were created under Democratic Administrations then Republican 42-21. In all income levels except the top 1%, PERSONAL income growth rates under Democratic presidents well exceeded income growth rates under Republican ones. The US gross debt has skyrocketed under EVERY Republican administration from the beginning of Nixon’s 2nd term onward

We should start a petition or something that Americans can unite and join together stating we want the top 2% wealthiest Bush tax cuts to be repealed. It’s been over 10 years. Not to mention the capital gains tax caps and other unjust corporate welfare. If they want to declare war on our most vulnerable and those work for a living rather than living off dividends, we’ll give them a war. And I hope the media will educate us on this as it has about who the 47% are. Abraham Lincoln "I see in the near future a crisis approaching. It unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. The money powers preys upon the nation in times of peace and conspires against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than a monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy. It denounces, as public enemies, all who question its methods or throw light upon its crimes….. I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me & the financial institutions at the rear, the latter is my greatest foe…… Corporations have been enthroned, and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in the hands of a few, & the Republic is destroyed." -Abraham Lincoln,

“This is essentially a People's contest. On the side of the Union, it is a struggle for maintaining in the world, that form, and substance of government, whose leading object is, to elevate the condition of men -- to lift artificial weights from all shoulders -- to clear the paths of laudable pursuit for all -- to afford all, an unfettered start, and a fair chance, in the race of life.” Abraham Lincoln in his first address to congress

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Excellent. Well said.

Thx

Peace & Solidarity.

[-] 2 points by flip (7098) 2 years ago

At one time in the U.S., in the mid-19th century, working for wage labor was considered not very different from chattel slavery. That was the slogan of the Republican Party, the banner under which northern workers went to fight in the Civil War. We’re against chattel slavery and wage slavery.

[-] 2 points by flip (7098) 2 years ago

Abraham Lincoln Quote

“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races – that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.”

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Pretty fucked up time huh? And he was the good guy!. Ha!

Sounds like the 1st campaign.

Do you wanna make a point?

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (21440) 2 years ago

Good quote and exactly what I was thinking when I read this post.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Click on link for entire article

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

And 14 years later, in 1886, the court "ruled" that corporatioins have the same rights as people.
And the power of "corporate personhood"
to enslave the 99% has been growing ever since.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Lincoln warned us about corps too!

"I see in the near future a crisis approaching. It unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. The money powers preys upon the nation in times of peace and conspires against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than a monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy. It denounces, as public enemies, all who question its methods or throw light upon its crimes….. I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me & the financial institutions at the rear, the latter is my greatest foe…… Corporations have been enthroned, and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in the hands of a few, & the Republic is destroyed." -Abraham Lincoln,

[-] 1 points by Karlin (350) from Nelson, BC 2 years ago

OWS is perhaps a movement that will herald another step towards equality for all those suffering racial intolerance.

Black Slaves, First Nations peoples, and those "indentured servants" that steveboi pointed out were all persecuted/enslaved for FINANCIAL reasons, mostly cheap labour. The "inferiority" idea and the hatred towards these groups mostly came about as a way to try to justify their enslavement.

OWS is all about economic equality, and if achieved that will go a long way towards racial equality too.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

True dat!

And today all over the world people are still enslaved for financial reasons.

OWS has a lot to do.

Peace

[-] 1 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 2 years ago

I saw something on PBS that showed a side of history that was buried for the most part. In the 1600's many people came here from Europe and Africa as indentured servants. They were basically slaves but there was no racism to speak of. There was intermarrige between the two group and noone thought anything of it. The southern nobility at some point (around 1700?) decided to introduce slavery based on race. Years later Lincoln's main goal was to preserve the union and doing away with race-based slavery became neccessary in order to do this. The issue of slavery itself and it's biblical origins was not challenged. A union victory had created a better and more just society but it did not address the problems left over from economic apartheid replacing racial apartheid. We are not headed towards the society that existed during the 1600's when someone could literally 'own' you but it looks like a two-class society is our future.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

A two class system IS our present, and past, but the future will of course be equal. Because that is what is right and is what most people want!.

PBS is great. I've seen documentaries that discuss the indentured service concept you mentioned. In fact it applied to not only Africans, but whites as well. Early European settlers (not just southern) found that the white servants escaped and could not really be caught/identified easily.

The African servants could by identified obviously easier. And the Europeans liked the free (cheap) reliable labor of the Africans. They began before 1700 to utilize scripture to justify their superiority as masters of the African slaves.

The Civil was clearly about ending slavery but the results of slavery created 2 very different economic systems. Beginnings of Industrial revolution in North, & an almost midevil, sedentary serfdom down south.

Had to change, for the sake of human freedom as well as economic progress.

The future WILL of course be better because we have always made progress. Sometimes slow, sometimes troubling, Sometimes bloody. Always forward.

Next goal real Direct Democracy!

[-] 2 points by flip (7098) 2 years ago

did you miss this? Abraham Lincoln Quote

“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races – that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.”

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Wow twice. but still no point.

You trying to minimize the great accomplishment of the 150th anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation.?

[-] 2 points by flip (7098) 2 years ago

no point - hmmmm - how about this then - the "freeing of the slaves" was entirely for political reasons. He knew that if the South had no slaves, it would cripple their economy. With out slaves, the South had no one to grow food their crops, or do most of the unskilled labor. If there was no one to grow food, the Army starved, and if the Confederate Army starved, the US Army would win. It had nothing to do with wanting to free the people. Abe Lincoln was not even an abolitionist, and his treatment of slaves has been grossly overrated.

Another thing that is rarely mentioned, is that not all of the states that had slavery seceded, and because of this some slaves were initially overlooked. Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware were all slave states that never announced their sucession. When the Emancipation Proclamation was issued on January 1, 1863, those states, and also West Virginia were not included. Until the 13 Amendment, only slaves in the states that had officially suceeded were freed. The 13th Amendment was not ratified until TWO YEARS (in 1865)after the Emancipation Proclamation was issued. So slavery actually continued for two years after Lincoln "freed" the slaves.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

If freeing slaves was all about the war and defeating the South why did we make the effort to ratify the 13th amendment to cover all states if by 1865 when the war was won?

Your suggestions as to "the great emancipators" motivation are ridiculous, and offensive. You don't know what you're talkin about.

You sound like one of those racist, Confederate sympathising, wackos who have been trying to re write history to paint a better picture of the brutal racism of the CSA and make minimize Honest Abes greatness.

Heres a quote for you johny reb.:

"I see in the near future a crisis approaching. It unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. The money powers preys upon the nation in times of peace and conspires against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than a monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy. It denounces, as public enemies, all who question its methods or throw light upon its crimes….. I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me & the financial institutions at the rear, the latter is my greatest foe…… Corporations have been enthroned, and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in the hands of a few, & the Republic is destroyed." -Abraham Lincoln,

OWS has a friend and leader in President Abraham Lincoln. Truly our greatest president.

[-] 1 points by flip (7098) 2 years ago

think what you like about abe - just don't ask me to forget this part - “I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races – that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

The times were pretty fucked up. Seems to me your citing of his campaign quotes to placate the racists (north & south) does not detract from the reality that President Abraham Lincoln emancipated the slaves.!

All these quotes are meaningless in the light of the times/campaign they were said in.

The greatness was in emancipating the slaves in those times. It happened! Honest Abe did it! And he did in a rabidly racist country that continued oppression for more than another century.

Even now the descendents of those racists continue attempts at oppression with the current massive voter suppression, war on drugs, and even to minimize Lincolns greatness, as well as attempting to whitewash the CSA's brutal crimes, by attempting to rewrite civil war history.

These 150 year commemorations will be an excellent time to challenge those dishonest efforts that distract from the reality and righteousness of humanities progress at that time and since..

Peace

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5878) 2 years ago

The irony is that with the defeat of the Confederacy, slavery had actually come to an end in the Confederacy before it had come to an end in the Union.

[-] 1 points by yobstreet (-575) 2 years ago

A New Birth of Freedom: Abraham Lincoln and the Coming of the Civil War... Harry V. Jaffa.

Jaffa's repetitive but absolutely brilliant... he understands like very few do - perhaps three in all of American "history."

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Last monday (9/17) was the 150th anniversary of the bloodiest day in US history (Antietam)

We are approaching of course many more 150th commemorations. I think a good time to review how all the 99% is doing. How the wageSlaves can have their lives improved.

And how the enemies of the 99% have grown, and evolved since the pre gilded age civil war period.

[-] 0 points by yobstreet (-575) 2 years ago

Are you saying you are not a wage slave? If not, do you even belong here?

Every era has seen it's "gilded age" - this country has always been prosperous, and never more so than over the last thirty years.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I have been a wage slave but no more. I belong here by virtue of the fact that I support the ideas OWS advocates, & because I support the change that will benefit the 99%!

Are you gonna attempt to get personal info from me and use it to personally attack me or my right to "belong here"?

That would be a distraction from the important issues that current wageslave economic models impose on the 99%.

Perhaps the middle class wage stagnation, or the indentured servitude current debt policies allow would be a valuable discussion.

But whether an individual (you or I) "belongs here" is not valuable. All people interested in the current problems in our country belong here. Even those who disagree.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Are you sure about that?

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

About what? All people belong here? Sure. You don't?.

Wanna start an inquisition to determine who is pure enough to be here?

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

You're one of the people who has very aggressively tried to make me feel unwelcome because I'm not pure enough for you. You're a walking ball of contradictions, every day that I read your posts.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I never said you don't belong here! We may disagree but that is alright. We must allow different opinions in order to evolve and/or convince others, or find consensus. Like we did with your money out of politics common ground thang.

You ready for another issue yet? Or are you still refusing to seek more common ground.

[-] -1 points by yobstreet (-575) 2 years ago

I know it's difficult, but you should focus on being slightly less flakey. All OWS issues are centered around government fiscal policy; if you do not contribute then you should not be permitted a stake in the just outcome.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

"flakey"? insults simply reflect your inability to discuss substance in a civil and respectful way.

Your offensive comments are unfounded. You offer no evidence. My comments are all about the fiscal situation the 99% struggles with.

And to suggest the me or anyone should not be permitted is just useless, meaningless nonsense.

Good luck in all your good efforts.

[-] 1 points by yobstreet (-575) 2 years ago

Flakey:

You can't imply that others do not belong here, as you often suggest, and then say: "All people interested in the current problems in our country belong here. Even those who disagree."

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I ain't "implied" any one don't belong here! That's you blatantly lying.

I never told anyone they can't be here.

[-] 1 points by yobstreet (-575) 2 years ago

OK. And I rest my case...

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Impressive. How did you do that?

We're not worthy.

[-] 0 points by yobstreet (-575) 2 years ago

You're a flake, VQ... if you're not threatening someone, you're accusing them of lying. It's bizarre.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

"flake"? Please refrain from the unfounded childish offensiveness. You offer no evidence because you have none. If you can't discuss without insults your should just be an adult, admit defeat and not comment.

The insults are meaningless, and useless.

[-] 1 points by yobstreet (-575) 2 years ago

We'll never admit defeat. At the moment Clinton is buying Morsi dinner in NY, pushing his "Global Initiative," or in other words, selling his seat of power which considering the nation's stance on Al Qaeda is virtually treasonous.

All of this is really bizarre.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

white house press lied claiming

"the embassy protests in the middle east was over a youtube video unrelated to the US government"

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I heard the Admin say the attacks were a planned Al Qaeda attack.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

Al Qaeda is the goto excuse

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Right you said they don't exist.

One party said it's because Pres Obama is weak on Middle East policy!

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

Pres Obama should call a cease fire on US military aggression

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Do you think that would stop the violence. I support that strategy.

I think our side thinks the violence would continue. I think also the Pes would probably lose the election if he did that. And the Pres can't eliminate all nuclear weapons if isn't re elected, right?

[-] 1 points by yobstreet (-575) 2 years ago

Well... I watched the video anyway. But yea, that to me, was all too obvious. They don't want to admit that their policy of schmoozing has failed. You know it's more than that though because some of these Muslim clerics jumped right on it - which implies collusion.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

I doubt that

[-] 1 points by yobstreet (-575) 2 years ago

Uh huh... and Clinton is hosting Morsi in NY? Get real.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

An American apology would only be appropriate if the US stopped using drones and bombs

[-] 1 points by yobstreet (-575) 2 years ago

It would appear that the intent in Libya was to allow a more radical Islam take hold.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

someone said

"crisis is opportunity"

[-] 1 points by yobstreet (-575) 2 years ago

Uhh, noo... crisis occurred, and this administration covered its tracks with the full cooperation of the Muslim clerics. You're right in the sense that the clerics jumped on the opportunity to rant about anti-Muslim press.

[-] -1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

well it's not like

the possibility of a middle east US embassy protest hung long before it happened

clergy may have been complaining about movie a long time before the protest

clergy saw a chance to be heard and hit the press

white house takes story as opportunity to dodge issue

[-] 1 points by yobstreet (-575) 2 years ago

That seems reasonable. But no matter, I don't think Obama can dodge the issue of choosing to militarily support Muslim rebels who ultimately not only violently protest but actually kill Americans. Pakistan has posted a 100,000 dollar reward... and as we all know, this is now destined to reoccur repeatedly as a means to not only antagonize but prove the point. I don't know to what extent Obama's Muslim stance descends by way of the Clintons, but in any case, it's really bizarre. I mean, is an American apology appropriate here?

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Somehow you're able to look past that Lincoln was a Republican? What's next, glorifying Teddy Roosevelt for trust busting?

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Party is irrelevant! where they are in the political spectrum is more important to me. Since Lincoln was clearly liberal on civil rights issues and ended Slavery I can look beyond the party. But you know the republican party was nothing like todays right?

And Teddy was always one of my Fav Pres. For trust busting, workers rights and more. Bully!

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

The "political spectrum" is not one-dimensional. You seem to think that there is no such thing as a progressive Republican in 2012 but that's just a prejudice.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Put your childish attacks aside and give me an example of the elusive progressive republican.

Have you not watched as the repub party has moved to the extreme right? The Tea party just announced their #1 target for next election cycle is Lyndsy Graham. Not moderate!, Not progressive! Conservative but not conservative enough.

One example of progressive republican, & one example of progressive policy republicans support.

Please I gotta know. Is it real or just a myth?

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

I don't think that you understand what "progressive" means. I think that you think that "progressive" means "left", and that "Republican" means "right", and that "progressive Republican" is an oxymoron. But the error in that logic is the assumption that the political spectrum is simply one-dimensional and that "left", "liberal", "progressive", and "Democrat" are all essentially synonyms. They're not.

Because a person's political positions don't necessarily fit along a one-dimensional political spectrum, if I mention any given specific person then you will look for the most non-progressive position that you can find in that person's profile and you'll use it to declare him not-a-progressive. If I mention a Republican who has pushed for campaign finance reform and financial regulations in order to reduce the influence of money over our government and to improve the financial stability of the country, then you'll immediately look for wedge issues like his position on abortion so that you can reject him for not being pure.

Or alternatively you might reject a Republican who is socially liberal and fiscally conservative because in your mind, "progressive" is code for "socially liberal and fiscally liberal". But the spectrum has more than one dimension, and progressivism is just one of many dimensions. Progressivism is about pushing for reform in order to make our country a better place.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Wow. more criticism of my beliefs. Or what you THINK my beliefs are. Let me short circuit that distraction. It don't matter what I think.

Just give me one Progessive republican. Or one progessive policy that republicans support. Don't worry about what I'm gonna say. We can assume that you and I will disagree.

Do you think progressivism is good?

And when you say it is about pushing reform, what specific reform is in you mind when you say that? I mentioned what I believe progessive tax reform looks like.

What do you think progressive reform looks like.?

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Progressivism is about pushing for any social, political or economic reform, it's not about aligning with specific left/right issues. That's what I've teen trying to tell you.

McCain-Feingold was one example of bipartisan progressive reform. And obviously I would not be here pushing for campaign finance reform if I did not believe that "progressivism is good".

Going further back, the 19th amendment was ratified after it gained support from both parties, influenced partly by the Bull-Moose/Progressive party founded by (Republican) Teddy Roosevelt.

The 22nd amendment passed with bipartisan support and virtually no debate. So did the 26th amendment. And all of the amendments passed with a 2/3 vote which requires bipartisan support.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

The past is gone. The current republican party would never support the amendments you mentioned.

Even McCain/Feingold is NOT supported by the current republican party. Except maybe McCain. How has he been treated by the tea party right wing extremists running the current republican party.

Give me a break. Progressivism is NOT "any... reform" it is very specific reform. Reform that republicans do NOT support today.

That ain't my opinion. That is the way it is. You can't offer anything but actions from 100 years ago, or 50 years ago, at best 20 years ago.

The republican party needs to look at the events you cite. They would do well to remake their agenda with those actions as a guide.

[-] 1 points by engineer4 (352) 2 years ago

VQ. You still do not listen very well.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Just an unfounded accusation without evidence.

What did I not listen to.?

[-] 1 points by engineer4 (352) 2 years ago

You do not even listen to yourself. How about this one from the above conversation with Flip:

"all these quotes are meaningless in light of the times/campaign they were said in".

You are refuting your own rebuttal. Try listening to yourself and others when communicating.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I listen very well.

I was referring to flips quotes that showed Lincolns racist tendencies. I think perhaps you are mistaken.

Maybe you can stop your preoccupation with me & how I debate. I'm certainly willing to discuss important issues that hurt the 99% these days, but I'm less interested in your innaccurate personal attacks.

Peace, good luck in all your good works.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

You think that "left" and "progressive" are synonyms and I'm aware that nothing that I can ever say will convince you. I'm satisfied and entertained simply by confirming that you don't really know what the word "progressive" means.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

You don't speak for me! I do not believe that, but it is not relevant what I believe & certainly not what you claim I believe.

That is just your attempt to distract from the discussion. Forget what you think I think. And provide an example of what YOU think a progressive republican is. Or what progressive policy this republican party could support.

You can't, so you distract with your incorrect description of my thoughts.

You don't speak for me boss.

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

We were just talking about McCain-Feingold, but I'm also a Republican who is here to push for campaign finance reform.

I'm worried about even mentioning this because I know how you're prone to confusing the words "progressive" and "liberal" and I think that this might just confuse you more, but I live in South Beach and I'm very socially liberal. My wife and I are some of the only straight people on our apartment floor. I'm in favor of reform that advances human rights for gays. Andrew Sullivan might be another example of a conservative who is progressive on social issues.

So let's review the list... There's Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, John McCain, me, Andrew Sullivan... Do you want more examples?

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I have not mentioned liberal! YOU have!.

Lincoln, Teddy, are from the repub party that did a 180 degree change between 1950-70.

John McCain is not representative of his current republican party, Andrew Sullivan & You are not in office.

But I understand. Don't worry. No more pressure. I hope you can understand what I'm saying.

Peace, & good luck in all your good efforts.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

In another thread, you treated anti-war and anti-nuke positions as prerequisites for a "progressive" label, which reveals clearly that you think that the word is synonymous with "liberal".

And we can keep marching forward through history if you think that progressive Republicans ceased to exist after 1950. Let's start with Eisenhower.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Dwight_D._Eisenhower#Domestic_affairs

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

you have said nothing if you say progressivism means supporting social, politica, & economic reform.

Until you say what kind of reform it's just generalities.

Let's focus on economics.

What kind of reform wouldyou say id progressive? What kind of reform might you support? Please refrain from your continual effort at making this liberal or partisan in some way.

Let's stick to honest, civil, respectful discussion of specific issues.

Thanx

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

hope and change

What kind of reform wouldyou say id progressive?

putting control of the money into the hands of the people not the banks

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

I'll give you four examples. One example of liberal, progressive economic reformers and one example of non-liberal progressive economic reformers. One example of liberal, progressive social reformers and one example of non-liberal progressive social reformers.

Let's start with non-liberal progressive social reformers. In 1901, the Democratic Party in two states reorganized around a reform agenda. Their objective was disenfranchisement of black voters. Whereas the civil rights movement was an example of liberal progressive social reform.

On economics, I'm going to talk specifically about modern liberalism as opposed to classic liberalism, because the two can come to opposite conclusions on economics. Modern liberalism advocates the government's collectivist role in protecting liberty. (Whereas classic liberalism advocates individual liberties, not statism.) So a progressive who pushes for economic reform in the form of a simplified tax code is advocating for less government manipulation through tax incentives, which is classic liberalism but not modern liberalism. Whereas a progressive who argues for more regulation of corporations is advocating for more state control, or modern liberalism.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Modern liberalism, classic liberalism, 1901, progressive, taxes, control, regulation, collectivism, statism.

Ok?

Do we agree?

I'm glad I could make myself clear. thanks.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I like Ike. The transition was going on at that time and completed by Nixon.

It is meaningless to attempt to prove I am equating progressivism with liberalism.

I haven't and do not need to take a stand on your false distraction.

I'm perfectly willing to remain in a discussion about progressivism, and I'm prepared to debate any definition you propose.

What would you say progressivism is.? I've already said I disagree with the statement the is defined as any reform. It is defined by reform. Yes but specific reforms.

Let's hear your opinion on it instead of your inaccurate accusations about what I believe.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

I've already defined the word "progressivism" several times as supporting social, political or economic reform. You say that it means supporting specific liberal social, political or economic reforms, which is to (incorrectly) equate liberalism and progressivism.