# A quote from Abe Lincoln over Rich vs Poor--very TRUE--what say you liberals.



## oreo

*"You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred. You cannot build character and courage by taking away people's initiative and independence. You cannot help people permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves." *--Abraham Lincoln 


O.K. Liberals explain this one--

*This is probably the best quote I have seen from any President.*  Apparently our politicians with all their Harvard Law degrees--still don't get it.  This quote from someone that had to teach himself how to read & write while using a candle to illuminate the pages of his books so he could read.


----------



## Coyote

Lincoln never said that.

snopes.com: Abraham Lincoln on Prosperity


----------



## Modbert

Swing and a miss Oreo.


----------



## QUENTIN

Bullshit

snopes.com: Abraham Lincoln on Prosperity


----------



## QUENTIN

Whoops, beat me to it.

Easily fooled, huh Oreo? Did you get that from World Net Daily or a chain letter?


----------



## Coyote

...and so speaketh the liberals


----------



## Douger

Here's one that is real.
Take a look around on this board and you'll see that he was spot on.

A house divided against itself cannot stand.
Abraham Lincoln


----------



## Bfgrn

oreo said:


> *"You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred. You cannot build character and courage by taking away people's initiative and independence. You cannot help people permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves." *--Abraham Lincoln
> 
> 
> O.K. Liberals explain this one--
> 
> *This is probably the best quote I have seen from any President.*  Apparently our politicians with all their Harvard Law degrees--still don't get it.  This quote from someone that had to teach himself how to read & write while using a candle to illuminate the pages of his books so he could read.



Simple...it was said by William John Henry Boetcker (18731962), an American religious leader, an outspoken political conservative.

Here's a real Lincoln quote...

     The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves in their separate, and individual capacities. In all that the people can individually do as well for themselves, government ought not to interfere. The desirable things which the individuals of a people can not do, or can not well do, for themselves, fall into two classes: those which have relation to wrongs, and those which have not. Each of these branch off into an infinite variety of subdivisions. The first that in relation to wrong sembraces all crimes, misdemeanors, and nonperformance of contracts. The other embraces all which, in its nature, and without wrong, requires combined action, as public roads and highways, public schools, charities, pauperism, orphanage, estates of the deceased, and the machinery of government itself. From this it appears that if all men were just, there still would be some, though not so much, need for government.    Lincoln, Abraham

Source: ABRAHAM LINCOLN, fragment on government The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, ed. Roy P. Basler, vol. 2, pp.


----------



## midcan5

Weird, idiocy on the Internet never dies. We covered this one long ago.


"We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." Anaïs Nin


----------



## paperview

I love it when a connie OP gets pummeled by the second post.


----------



## Ravi

oreo said:


> *"You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred. You cannot build character and courage by taking away people's initiative and independence. You cannot help people permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves." *--Abraham Lincoln
> 
> 
> O.K. Liberals explain this one--
> 
> *This is probably the best quote I have seen from any President.*  Apparently our politicians with all their Harvard Law degrees--still don't get it.  This quote from someone that had to teach himself how to read & write while using a candle to illuminate the pages of his books so he could read.


Here is a real one that I think is very apt.







  Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.


----------



## Xenophon

Should do real Abe quotes, he had some fun ones like this:

"Common looking people are the best in the world: that is the reason the Lord makes so many of them."


----------



## Tom Clancy

Ouch...


----------



## sboyle24

The smack has been laid upon thy cheeks.


----------



## Charles Stucker

Douger said:


> Here's one that is real.
> Take a look around on this board and you'll see that he was spot on.
> 
> A house divided against itself cannot stand.
> Abraham Lincoln



Of course if the house is on fire it might be a good idea to pull it down in order to prevent the fire from spreading to everything else.


----------



## rightwinger

oreo...

Didn't we tell you this months ago when you tried to use the same quote as your sig?

Are you just fishing here?


----------



## sboyle24

Why do lies like this quote, Citizenship issues with Obama, Death panels, communism, etc. ever start? From where do these lies originate? It's creating a violently insane political atmosphere where nobody knows what to believe.


----------



## JakeStarkey

oreo said:


> *"You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred. You cannot build character and courage by taking away people's initiative and independence. You cannot help people permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves." *--Abraham Lincoln
> 
> 
> O.K. Liberals explain this one--
> 
> *This is probably the best quote I have seen from any President.*  Apparently our politicians with all their Harvard Law degrees--still don't get it.  This quote from someone that had to teach himself how to read & write while using a candle to illuminate the pages of his books so he could read.



The following is a direct quotation.  _These words are often attributed to Abraham Lincoln, but according to the book They Never Said it: A Book of Fake Quotes, Misquotes, & Misleading Attributions, they are not from Lincoln.

The quotes were published in 1942 by William J. H. Boetcker, a Presbyterian minister. He released a pamphlet titled Lincoln On Limitations, which did include a Lincoln quote, but also added 10 statements written by Boetcker himself.

They were:

1. You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
2. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong
3. You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich.
4. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
5. You cannot build character and courage by taking away man's initiative and independence.
6. You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.
7. You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
8. You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income.
9. You cannot establish security on borrowed money.
10 You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they will not do for themselves.

People who got the pamphlet thought the 10 statements were written by Lincoln and they have been distributed widely under Lincoln's name.
Source(s):  http://rightcuz.com/2009/07/12/hes-no-ab&#8230;_


----------



## IanC

who cares who the source was? the quote is the substance of the OP. common sense ideas that are not common anymore, and are actually counter to today's common practise


----------



## JakeStarkey

IanC's comment above illustrates what is wrong with his muddled thinking.  The OP bases its authority on the idea that the quotes were from AL.  THEY ARE NOT.  Thus, the OP's legitimacy is weakened (1) by the false documentation, and (2) the suspicion that the act was deliberate.


----------



## JWBooth

"Send them to Liberia, to their own native land. But free them and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit this."

*Abraham Lincoln, as cited in "The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln," *Roy Basler, ed. 1953 New Brunswick, N.J.,: Rutgers  University Press:


----------



## blu

fw: fw: fw: fw: fw: fw: BEST QUOTE EVER! CHENEY 2012!!!!


----------



## IanC

JakeStarkey said:


> IanC's comment above illustrates what is wrong with his muddled thinking.  The OP bases its authority on the idea that the quotes were from AL.  THEY ARE NOT.  Thus, the OP's legitimacy is weakened (1) by the false documentation, and (2) the suspicion that the act was deliberate.




hmmm...

interesting take, I suppose. There are a lot of quotes that are attributed to one person when in all likelihood they originated with another. My point was that no one was interested in the qoute, only in attacking the poster. Ideas stand on their own merit, not by who says them.


----------



## rdean

oreo said:


> *"You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred. You cannot build character and courage by taking away people's initiative and independence. You cannot help people permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves." *--Abraham Lincoln
> 
> 
> O.K. Liberals explain this one--
> 
> *This is probably the best quote I have seen from any President.*  Apparently our politicians with all their Harvard Law degrees--still don't get it.  This quote from someone that had to teach himself how to read & write while using a candle to illuminate the pages of his books so he could read.



Bush tax cuts were the greatest redistribution of wealth from the middle class to the top 3% in the history of the world.  That made many in the middle class "poor".  You see, it works both ways.  Lincoln wasn't talking about what Republicans did.  He was talking about taking advantage of rich people.  What Republicans did was take advantage of the middle class, which they still do today.  Only now much of that middle class is now poor thanks to Republican policies.

Hope that helped.


----------



## uscitizen

Interesting.  We are just leaving an era where spending more than you have brought about a false prosperity.
Reality is setting in, Adjustment to reality will take years though.
Although we should emerge stronger Althought having less if we don't listen to the idiots.


----------



## JakeStarkey

IanC said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> IanC's comment above illustrates what is wrong with his muddled thinking.  The OP bases its authority on the idea that the quotes were from AL.  THEY ARE NOT.  Thus, the OP's legitimacy is weakened (1) by the false documentation, and (2) the suspicion that the act was deliberate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hmmm...
> 
> interesting take, I suppose. There are a lot of quotes that are attributed to one person when in all likelihood they originated with another. My point was that no one was interested in the qoute, only in attacking the poster. Ideas stand on their own merit, not by who says them.
Click to expand...


My point is the quote is false, it's attacked and that part is over.

Did you knowingly post a false claim to authority?  If you think that is an attack on you, it's not: it's a questioning of your professionalism and integrity.

Did you do it on purpose or by accident?


----------



## editec

> "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." Anaïs Nin


 
Spot on, Anaïs.

FYI here's some other quotes from that brilliant woman:




"Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage."
"This diary is my kief, hashish, and opium pipe. This is my drug and my vice."
"...for no one has ever loved an adventurous woman as they have loved adventurous men."
"And the day came when the risk to remain tight in a bud was more painful than the risk it took to blossom."
"I do not want to be the leader. I refuse to be the leader. I want to live darkly and richly in my femaleness. I want a man lying over me, always over me. His will, his pleasure, his desire, his life, his work, his sexuality the touchstone, the command, my pivot. I dont mind working, holding my ground intellectually, artistically; but as a woman, oh, God, as a woman I want to be dominated. I dont mind being told to stand on my own feet, not to cling, be all that I am capable of doing, but I am going to be pursued, fucked, possessed by the will of a male at his time, his bidding."
"How wrong is it for women to expect the man to build the world she wants, rather than set out to create it herself."
"I postpone death by living, by suffering, by error, by risking, by giving, by losing."
"Each friend represents a world in us, a world not possibly born until they arrive, and it is only by this meeting that a new world is born."
"I am an excitable person who only understands life lyrically, musically, in whom feelings are much stronger as reason. I am so thirsty for the marvelous that only the marvelous has power over me. Anything I cannot transform into something marvelous, I let go. Reality doesn't impress me. I only believe in intoxication, in ecstasy, and when ordinary life shackles me, I escape, one way or another. No more walls."
"Something is always born of excess: great art was born of great terror, great loneliness, great inhibitions, instabilities, and it always balances them."
"Love never dies a natural death. It dies because we don't know how to replenish its source. It dies of blindness and errors and betrayals. It dies of illness and wounds; it dies of weariness, of withering, of tarnishing."
"Dreams are necessary to life."
"We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are."
"People living deeply have no fear of death."
"The dream was always running ahead of me. To catch up, to live for a moment with it, that was the miracle."
"Each contact with a human being is so rare, so precious, one should preserve it. "
"The only abnormality is the inability to love."


----------



## Mr Natural

I'd like to hear a true story of a rich person who has been "destroyed" - operative word here is "destroyed" - because he was forced by the government to help out the poor.


----------



## code1211

JakeStarkey said:


> IanC's comment above illustrates what is wrong with his muddled thinking.  The OP bases its authority on the idea that the quotes were from AL.  THEY ARE NOT.  Thus, the OP's legitimacy is weakened (1) by the false documentation, and (2) the suspicion that the act was deliberate.




That last point about doing for people what they can and should do for themselves was also adapted by John Wooden for his Pyramid of Success.  Thoughts that strengthen the charchter are good by virtue of the strength they impart.

I have always believed Lincoln to be a great and good man, but I did not know him.  Whether a thought comes from him or from someone else, it should stand or fall based on its merit, not its author.

Is Lincoln considered great due to his actions and words or are his wods considered great because they are his?  Obviously, he is considered great due to his actions and words.  Also humor.  Like Franklin, he knew the value of making people smile.


----------



## code1211

Mr Clean said:


> I'd like to hear a true story of a rich person who has been "destroyed" - operative word here is "destroyed" - because he was forced by the government to help out the poor.




"Help out" meaning what?  I have held numerous jobs and have been grateful to have each and every one of them.  Some rich guy was at the source of each of these jobs.  Did they not "help" me by employing me?

The first job I ever had was mowing the lawn of a judge.  At the completion of the mowing, he would painstakingly review the entire job.  We would walk around his yard and talk about mowing the lawn.  Talk about how the grass grew.  Talk about how trimming the grass near to the fence was a difficult job that required precision and attention.

He would point out where I had lost concentration or where a flower had bloomed on a bush.  Bugs, dirt, grass, edging, trimming, drought, rainfall, pride and achievement.

He could just as easily have given me the $1.00 and said, "Thanks" and sent me on my way.  I don't recall what I spent the dollars on, but I do recall those walks around his yard.

He was not "forced" to do this but he did help me.  

Is the part of your dream stated above that pleases you the most that a rich guy is brought down or that a poor person is helped out?  Is it the forcing part or the helping part?


----------



## Maple

Dogbert said:


> Swing and a miss Oreo.



The quote, no matter who said it, nailed it, because it's sooooooooooooooooooo true and right on.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Maple, I understand why you are personally supporting the OP, but the fact is the person who  posted did so with false documentation.  Lincoln would have been a progressive if he had lived in that age.  Progressives are both liberal (women's vote) and conservative (prohibition).  Anybody who states that progressivism is only liberalism is (1) mentally feeble, (2) ignorant, or (3) malignant.


----------



## IanC

JakeStarkey said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> IanC's comment above illustrates what is wrong with his muddled thinking.  The OP bases its authority on the idea that the quotes were from AL.  THEY ARE NOT.  Thus, the OP's legitimacy is weakened (1) by the false documentation, and (2) the suspicion that the act was deliberate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hmmm...
> 
> interesting take, I suppose. There are a lot of quotes that are attributed to one person when in all likelihood they originated with another. My point was that no one was interested in the qoute, only in attacking the poster. Ideas stand on their own merit, not by who says them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My point is the quote is false, it's attacked and that part is over.
> 
> Did you knowingly post a false claim to authority?  If you think that is an attack on you, it's not: it's a questioning of your professionalism and integrity.
> 
> Did you do it on purpose or by accident?
Click to expand...



I am confused by your wording. I assumed you were talking about my 'muddled thinking' by your use of a pronoun. I did not defend the OP, just the actual qoutes, whether or not they were spoken by Lincoln. (wasn't at least one part attributed to him?). My point was that there is no need to make a claim to authority when the idea stands on its own merit. Do you think the ideas stated in the OP are reasonable or not? I could care less whether you think it was falsely attributed to Lincoln.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Nothing confusing, IanC.  Didy you deliberately or mistakenly post the "Lincoln" quote.

What you are opinion is remains absolutely worthless to this discussion, but what you did still has some value here.


----------



## IanC

are you confusing me with someone else?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Yes, I did, and thank you for correcting that, IanC.

One, the quote was mislabelled.

Two, the merit of the quote was enhanced by the authority of Lincoln not by its intrinsic character.

If you wish to argue that, then post your OP instead of trying to resurrect the abortion of this one.


----------



## Agit8r

Here is something that Lincoln actually DID say:

"Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. *Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."* -- from First State of Union Address


----------



## Sallow

Agit8r said:


> Here is something that Lincoln actually DID say:
> 
> "Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. *Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."* -- from First State of Union Address



That..and a progressive tax system adds parity to the economy. Although I would favor a more robust audit system of the "top" earners. Might flush out more Madoffs.


----------



## rightwinger

Agit8r said:


> Here is something that Lincoln actually DID say:
> 
> "Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. *Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."* -- from First State of Union Address



Thanks for straightening it out

Lincoln actually admired the working man and had a distrust of the capitalists who were trying to profit off the war


----------



## JBeukema

sboyle24 said:


> Why do lies like this quote, Citizenship issues with Obama, Death panels, communism, etc. ever start? From where do these lies originate? It's creating a violently insane political atmosphere where nobody knows what to believe.


----------



## G.Willickers

Here are a couple of real Lincoln quotes:

"That some achieve great success, is proof to all that others can achieve it as well".
-Abraham Lincoln   

"Capital has it's rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other right".
-Abraham Lincoln Dec. 3, 1861

"I don't believe in a law to prevent a man from getting rich; it would do more harm than good. So while we do not propose any war upon capital, we do wish to allow the humblest man an equal chance to get rich with everybody else".
-Abraham Lincoln March 6, 1860


----------



## Bfgrn

G.Willickers said:


> Here are a couple of real Lincoln quotes:
> 
> "That some achieve great success, is proof to all that others can achieve it as well".
> -Abraham Lincoln
> 
> *"Capital has it's rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other right".*
> -Abraham Lincoln Dec. 3, 1861
> 
> "I don't believe in a law to prevent a man from getting rich; it would do more harm than good. So while we do not propose any war upon capital, we do wish to allow the humblest man an equal chance to get rich with everybody else".
> -Abraham Lincoln March 6, 1860



If you put Agit8r's quote and yours together, you have what Lincoln really said... 

"Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other rights. Nor is it denied that there is, and probably always will be, a relation between labor and capital producing mutual benefits."

Abraham Lincoln, First State of the Union Address (3 December 1861) http://www.infoplease.com/t/hist/state-of-the-union/73.html


----------



## rdean

oreo said:


> *"You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred. You cannot build character and courage by taking away people's initiative and independence. You cannot help people permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves." *--Abraham Lincoln
> 
> 
> O.K. Liberals explain this one--
> 
> *This is probably the best quote I have seen from any President.*  Apparently our politicians with all their Harvard Law degrees--still don't get it.  This quote from someone that had to teach himself how to read & write while using a candle to illuminate the pages of his books so he could read.



It's why Democrats believe in Education.  What do Republicans believe in?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lm878T4iykc]Santorum calls president Obama a snob - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Intense

Education, minus the Indoctrination.


----------



## P@triot

sboyle24 said:


> Why do lies like this quote, Citizenship issues with Obama, Death panels, communism, etc. ever start? From where do these lies originate? It's creating a violently insane political atmosphere where nobody knows what to believe.



Except that everything you just mentioned are NOT lies.

Where did "citizenship issues with Obama" start from? Oh, I don't know, maybe from his OWN MOUTH. Have you read his autobiography? I've got $10K that says you haven't. Or how about the information he supplied to a publisher in 1991 that says "Born in Kenya, raised in Indonesia and Hawaii".

Now, if that information is inaccurate, Obama has no one to blame but himself. He supplied it to the publisher and he left it that way for 17 years. The "error" (wink, wink) was suddenly caught in 2007 - right when he announced his candidacy for the presidency. Isn't that one HELL of a coincidence?


----------



## rightwinger

As Abe Lincoln once said:

"Fuck the one percent"


----------



## JakeStarkey

Lincoln never said it.



oreo said:


> *"You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred. You cannot build character and courage by taking away people's initiative and independence. You cannot help people permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves." *--Abraham Lincoln
> 
> 
> O.K. Liberals explain this one--
> 
> *This is probably the best quote I have seen from any President.*  Apparently our politicians with all their Harvard Law degrees--still don't get it.  This quote from someone that had to teach himself how to read & write while using a candle to illuminate the pages of his books so he could read.


----------



## P@triot

sboyle24 said:


> Why do lies like this quote, Citizenship issues with Obama, Death panels, communism, etc. ever start? From where do these lies originate? It's creating a violently insane political atmosphere where nobody knows what to believe.



The only thing "creating a violently insane political atmosphere" is the left's refusal to deal with reality and facts.

Barack Obama himself has tons of material in his past that clearly indicates he was born in Kenya. Yet, we're all supposed to ignore that and just believe whatever the left tells us.

Every nation in world history that had government controlled healthcare had some form of "Death Panels". When you have an entire nation to care for, and limited resources (ie money, physicians, facilities, etc.), you *must* make choices about who gets what care. Choices are the nice way of saying "rationing". And rationing is just the nice way of saying "death panels". Yet once again, we are expected to ignore facts, history, and common sense in favor for what ever the left tells us regarding their vision of utopia.

Finally, as far as Communism, well once again - that comes straight from Obama's own mouth and his history:

His mentor (by his own acknowledgement) was Frank Marshall Davis. Frank Marshall Davis was a card carrying member of the Communist Party USA (card carrying CP #47544).

*I actually believe in redistribution* - Senator Barack Obama, 1998

*I think when you spread the wealth around, its good for everybody" *- Candidate Barack Obama, 2008

*I mean, I do think at a certain point youve made enough money.* - President Barack Obama, 2010

This is but the smallest portion of Barack's history - all of which is 100% fact and all of which can be independently verified by anyone who cares to know the truth. The problem we have in America is that the left prefers utopia over facts/reality.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The refusal to deal with reality and facts clearly defines the Far Right.



Rottweiler said:


> sboyle24 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do lies like this quote, Citizenship issues with Obama, Death panels, communism, etc. ever start? From where do these lies originate? It's creating a violently insane political atmosphere where nobody knows what to believe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing "creating a violently insane political atmosphere" is the left's refusal to deal with reality and facts.
> 
> Barack Obama himself has tons of material in his past that clearly indicates he was born in Kenya. Yet, we're all supposed to ignore that and just believe whatever the left tells us.
> 
> Every nation in world history that had government controlled healthcare had some form of "Death Panels". When you have an entire nation to care for, and limited resources (ie money, physicians, facilities, etc.), you *must* make choices about who gets what care. Choices are the nice way of saying "rationing". And rationing is just the nice way of saying "death panels". Yet once again, we are expected to ignore facts, history, and common sense in favor for what ever the left tells us regarding their vision of utopia.
> 
> Finally, as far as Communism, well once again - that comes straight from Obama's own mouth and his history:
> 
> His mentor (by his own acknowledgement) was Frank Marshall Davis. Frank Marshall Davis was a card carrying member of the Communist Party USA (card carrying CP #47544).
> 
> *I actually believe in redistribution* - Senator Barack Obama, 1998
> 
> *I think when you spread the wealth around, its good for everybody" *- Candidate Barack Obama, 2008
> 
> *I mean, I do think at a certain point youve made enough money.* - President Barack Obama, 2010
> 
> This is but the smallest portion of Barack's history - all of which is 100% fact and all of which can be independently verified by anyone who cares to know the truth. The problem we have in America is that the left prefers utopia over facts/reality.
Click to expand...


----------



## rightwinger

As Abe Lincoln once said:

"Trickle down economics is a bunch of  bullshit, if you cut taxes on the rich.....they just keep the money"


----------



## JakeStarkey

As Lincoln said, "Tax the rich until they bleed, because we take the workers' money particularly when the worker is in need."


----------



## The Professor

Douger said:


> Here's one that is real.
> Take a look around on this board and you'll see that he was spot on.
> 
> A house divided against itself cannot stand.
> Abraham Lincoln



Lincoln probably said it, but I think he got it from a somewhat older source:

And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand (Mark 3:25, KJV; see also Matthew 12:25, Luke 11:17).


----------



## freedombecki

rightwinger said:


> As Abe Lincoln once said:
> 
> "Trickle down economics is a bunch of  bullshit, if you cut taxes on the rich.....they just keep the money"


Yes, they do. and many, many of them invest it in companies who give a lot of people jobs. They do it for family, people in their communities they love and want to make sure get a fair shake in life with job opportunities, and even persons they won't acknowledge who talked them into investing money in projects that would ensure job opportunities for Americans.

Who the hell cares. The American one percent does. If they didn't, we'd be like a certain country who has a lot of people who cannot work due to no job opportunities, a rich class that is so jet-set they rarely stop in their own country.

This is a country of individuals taught that helping each other is the right thing to do, and they do just that. They don't tell anyone because it's against their religion.


----------



## P@triot

rightwinger said:


> As Abe Lincoln once said:
> 
> "Trickle down economics is a bunch of  bullshit, if you cut taxes on the rich.....they just keep the money"



*So the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is "a bunch of bullshit", uh?

The wealthy in this nation give generously like no other group of people in world history. Every university in this country has buildings named after wealthy people who donated (ie of their own free will) the money necessary to build those facilities.

Do you have any idea how many hospitals across the nation have facilities that bear the names of people who generously gave millions and millions of dollars?

Do you have any idea how much the wealthy have given to Shriners Hospitals so children could receive FREE healthcare????

Do you have any idea how much the wealthy have given to cancer research, AIDS research, and other medical research?

It's just a FACT that tax cuts for corporations, small business, and the wealthy results in more employment, more charity, more investing, and better conditions for everyone in the U.S.

The only thing that is "bullshit" is your blatant lie that the "rich just keep the money". And the people on this thread wonder why we have the current political climate we do? It's because of people just like you who hate others who were more successful and try to tear them down with lies.*


----------



## Bfgrn

Rottweiler said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> As Abe Lincoln once said:
> 
> "Trickle down economics is a bunch of  bullshit, if you cut taxes on the rich.....they just keep the money"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *So the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is "a bunch of bullshit", uh?
> 
> The wealthy in this nation give generously like no other group of people in world history. Every university in this country has buildings named after wealthy people who donated (ie of their own free will) the money necessary to build those facilities.
> 
> Do you have any idea how many hospitals across the nation have facilities that bear the names of people who generously gave millions and millions of dollars?
> 
> Do you have any idea how much the wealthy have given to Shriners Hospitals so children could receive FREE healthcare????
> 
> Do you have any idea how much the wealthy have given to cancer research, AIDS research, and other medical research?
> 
> It's just a FACT that tax cuts for corporations, small business, and the wealthy results in more employment, more charity, more investing, and better conditions for everyone in the U.S.
> 
> The only thing that is "bullshit" is your blatant lie that the "rich just keep the money". And the people on this thread wonder why we have the current political climate we do? It's because of people just like you who hate others who were more successful and try to tear them down with lies.*
Click to expand...


Time to Step Up: Corporate Charity Accounted for Only 5% of Giving in 2011 

There's a commercial running on television for a data delivery company where a woman who was late to knowing about a neighbor's newborn child is the loudest when acknowledging a gift sent by other neighbors.

That's just about the way the for-profit sector treats its philanthropy. "Look at us. Look at us. Aren't we great?" There is a conga line of companies lining up for the new "benefit corporation" status in California, constructed for companies that want a do-gooder label. For-profits all want to scream about how much they do for their communities and for philanthropy.

When the new GivingUSA numbers were posted this week and compared to recent events it was incredible to see that one stock transaction -- Facebook's initial public offering -- raised more money than was given by all of corporate America during 2011.

more


----------



## emilynghiem

G.Willickers said:


> Here are a couple of real Lincoln quotes:
> 
> "That some achieve great success, is proof to all that others can achieve it as well".
> -Abraham Lincoln
> 
> "Capital has it's rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other right".
> -Abraham Lincoln Dec. 3, 1861
> 
> "I don't believe in a law to prevent a man from getting rich; it would do more harm than good. So while we do not propose any war upon capital, we do wish to allow the humblest man an equal chance to get rich with everybody else".
> -Abraham Lincoln March 6, 1860



Dear GW: the REAL issue is abusing corporate status to have MORE rights than individuals because of using COLLECTIVE resources/influences to bypass checks balances and due process under the Constitution which otherwise stands for equal protection of the laws.

The simplest way to correct this, is to require that ALL institutions (whether religious, nonprofit or business etc) which register under the state or govt in order to conduct operations SIGN in their licensing that all members representing the organization agree to respect follow enforce and implement the SAME Code of Ethics and Constitutional laws as required of government since they have COLLECTIVE authority, resources and influence.

Otherwise the problem is there is no CHECK on people abusing corporate or institutional authority as the Bill of Rights and Fourteenth Amendment are supposed to do for govt.

Whether it is state, church or corporate authority that is abused, the solution is the same: to require due process and the right to petition for redress of grievances; where any bullying or coercion, exclusion or censorship aimed at preventing grievances of affected parties from being redressed would be Unconstitutional as obstructing justice and due process, and thus undermining "equal protection of the laws" to individuals by giving more to larger groups!


----------



## emilynghiem

Honestly, the Far Left can be just as fundamentally flawed and biased to the point of contradicting their own premise.

Some examples I've posted in one msg or another, ad infinitum (or ad nauseum):
1. Being prochoice and against prolife legislation as govt intrusion, but then supporting
the health care mandates that violate free choice (especially imposing requirements the govt has not even met or else threatening penalties if these aren't met).
2. Being anti-war and demanding diplomatic solutions instead of demonizing terrorists; yet namecalling, demonizing and waging war on Republican/conservative adversaries for the same reasons -- lack of faith that peace can be made with opposing groups and ideologies.
3. Insisting that ALL gays are naturally born that way and NONE can change (thus fighting an endless deadlock with people who claim that NO gays are natural and ALL are sinful).
Instead of acknowledging that in SOME cases of homosexuality, people are naturally inclined or born with this orientation and may not change, but some people are unnaturally influenced or reacting due to past abuse which could be healed to change their orientation.
4. Bashing Bush in order to organize politically to get other candidates in government, to such an extreme that it overrode the REAL issues behind the objections and was thus attacked as purely politically motivated (with namecalling like Unamerican or Communist);
then calling Tea Party and anti-Obama activists names like Racist and Nazis for lobbying against Obama to such an extreme it also overrides the VALID objections to his policies too!
5. Then the argument about abortion rights vs. gun rights; where conservatives who don't want govt interfering "at all" with gun rights will go to extreme measures to block proposed legislation they claim is not going to prevent the problem because criminals are going to get guns anyway (and liberals object and blame them for not taking responsibility); and when liberals who don't want govt interfering "at all" with abortion rights go to extreme measures to block any protective legislation, claiming people are going to get abortions anyway, then conservatives object and blame them for the same, etc.

I could go on, but these are the main ones I see the most, in one form or another.

The point is, there is a common failure of people on either the Right or Left to see when they "wax fundamentalist" on certain issues, that have an equivalent on the other side they find EQUALLY blindsided and annoying, when the shoe is on the other foot.

When they realize this is mutual, maybe there is a chance they will stop pushing those buttons and criticizing others, when they do the "EXACT SAME THING" when it comes to their sacred issues they react the same way to!



JakeStarkey said:


> The refusal to deal with reality and facts clearly defines the Far Right.
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sboyle24 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do lies like this quote, Citizenship issues with Obama, Death panels, communism, etc. ever start? From where do these lies originate? It's creating a violently insane political atmosphere where nobody knows what to believe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing "creating a violently insane political atmosphere" is the left's refusal to deal with reality and facts.
> 
> Barack Obama himself has tons of material in his past that clearly indicates he was born in Kenya. Yet, we're all supposed to ignore that and just believe whatever the left tells us.
> 
> Every nation in world history that had government controlled healthcare had some form of "Death Panels". When you have an entire nation to care for, and limited resources (ie money, physicians, facilities, etc.), you *must* make choices about who gets what care. Choices are the nice way of saying "rationing". And rationing is just the nice way of saying "death panels". Yet once again, we are expected to ignore facts, history, and common sense in favor for what ever the left tells us regarding their vision of utopia.
> 
> Finally, as far as Communism, well once again - that comes straight from Obama's own mouth and his history:
> 
> His mentor (by his own acknowledgement) was Frank Marshall Davis. Frank Marshall Davis was a card carrying member of the Communist Party USA (card carrying CP #47544).
> 
> *I actually believe in redistribution* - Senator Barack Obama, 1998
> 
> *I think when you spread the wealth around, its good for everybody" *- Candidate Barack Obama, 2008
> 
> *I mean, I do think at a certain point youve made enough money.* - President Barack Obama, 2010
> 
> This is but the smallest portion of Barack's history - all of which is 100% fact and all of which can be independently verified by anyone who cares to know the truth. The problem we have in America is that the left prefers utopia over facts/reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## JakeStarkey

Of course the Far Left is as crazy, Emily, as is the Far Right.

Either the good people America crush both extremes, or one side or the other will lead us to slaughter.


----------



## Bfgrn

JakeStarkey said:


> Of course the Far Left is as crazy, Emily, as is the Far Right.
> 
> Either the good people America crush both extremes, or one side or the other will lead us to slaughter.



What you fail to realize is that the "far left" has no power in this country. BOTH parties are right of center. It is a dangerous place to be.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The Far Left had power in the 1960s then we destroyed that power.  We will never let it rise up again.  We will do the same to the Far Right.


----------



## Bfgrn

emilynghiem said:


> Honestly, the Far Left can be just as fundamentally flawed and biased to the point of contradicting their own premise.
> 
> Some examples I've posted in one msg or another, ad infinitum (or ad nauseum):
> 1. Being prochoice and against prolife legislation as govt intrusion, but then supporting
> the health care mandates that violate free choice (especially imposing requirements the govt has not even met or else threatening penalties if these aren't met).
> 2. Being anti-war and demanding diplomatic solutions instead of demonizing terrorists; yet namecalling, demonizing and waging war on Republican/conservative adversaries for the same reasons -- lack of faith that peace can be made with opposing groups and ideologies.
> 3. Insisting that ALL gays are naturally born that way and NONE can change (thus fighting an endless deadlock with people who claim that NO gays are natural and ALL are sinful).
> Instead of acknowledging that in SOME cases of homosexuality, people are naturally inclined or born with this orientation and may not change, but some people are unnaturally influenced or reacting due to past abuse which could be healed to change their orientation.
> 4. Bashing Bush in order to organize politically to get other candidates in government, to such an extreme that it overrode the REAL issues behind the objections and was thus attacked as purely politically motivated (with namecalling like Unamerican or Communist);
> then calling Tea Party and anti-Obama activists names like Racist and Nazis for lobbying against Obama to such an extreme it also overrides the VALID objections to his policies too!
> 5. Then the argument about abortion rights vs. gun rights; where conservatives who don't want govt interfering "at all" with gun rights will go to extreme measures to block proposed legislation they claim is not going to prevent the problem because criminals are going to get guns anyway (and liberals object and blame them for not taking responsibility); and when liberals who don't want govt interfering "at all" with abortion rights go to extreme measures to block any protective legislation, claiming people are going to get abortions anyway, then conservatives object and blame them for the same, etc.
> 
> I could go on, but these are the main ones I see the most, in one form or another.
> 
> The point is, there is a common failure of people on either the Right or Left to see when they "wax fundamentalist" on certain issues, that have an equivalent on the other side they find EQUALLY blindsided and annoying, when the shoe is on the other foot.
> 
> When they realize this is mutual, maybe there is a chance they will stop pushing those buttons and criticizing others, when they do the "EXACT SAME THING" when it comes to their sacred issues they react the same way to!
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The refusal to deal with reality and facts clearly defines the Far Right.
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing "creating a violently insane political atmosphere" is the left's refusal to deal with reality and facts.
> 
> Barack Obama himself has tons of material in his past that clearly indicates he was born in Kenya. Yet, we're all supposed to ignore that and just believe whatever the left tells us.
> 
> Every nation in world history that had government controlled healthcare had some form of "Death Panels". When you have an entire nation to care for, and limited resources (ie money, physicians, facilities, etc.), you *must* make choices about who gets what care. Choices are the nice way of saying "rationing". And rationing is just the nice way of saying "death panels". Yet once again, we are expected to ignore facts, history, and common sense in favor for what ever the left tells us regarding their vision of utopia.
> 
> Finally, as far as Communism, well once again - that comes straight from Obama's own mouth and his history:
> 
> His mentor (by his own acknowledgement) was Frank Marshall Davis. Frank Marshall Davis was a card carrying member of the Communist Party USA (card carrying CP #47544).
> 
> *I actually believe in redistribution* - Senator Barack Obama, 1998
> 
> *I think when you spread the wealth around, its good for everybody" *- Candidate Barack Obama, 2008
> 
> *I mean, I do think at a certain point youve made enough money.* - President Barack Obama, 2010
> 
> This is but the smallest portion of Barack's history - all of which is 100% fact and all of which can be independently verified by anyone who cares to know the truth. The problem we have in America is that the left prefers utopia over facts/reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Your arguments have a lot of holes and false equivalencies emilynghiem. You are pandering.


----------



## Bfgrn

JakeStarkey said:


> The Far Left had power in the 1960s then we destroyed that power.  We will never let it rise up again.  We will do the same to the Far Right.



And what did that liberal power create Jake? I've been around since Harry Truman was President, so I lived through a good portion of the liberal era that started with the New Deal and ended with the Great Society. It was America's finest moment. It was an era with huge economic growth and shared wealth, fantastic successes in technology, vast expansion of citizen freedoms and liberties and the growth of a middle class that defined this country and made America the 'city on the hill', the envy of the world.

That era ended at the end of the 1960's and the conservative era began. It has continued ever since. It has been a negative mirror image of the liberal era. We now lead the world only in the dubious like incarcerating human beings, killing innocent people and launching Hirohito sneak attacks on sovereign nations.

So my question Jake, what blame do Republicans and conservatives deserve? You can't have the power, profess 'personable responsibility', then turn around and blame those without power.

What was our debt during the liberal era Jake? JFK and LBJ faced a SURPLUS. 

Where did our debt come from? When did massive debt become part of the American economy?

Reagan switched the federal government from what he critically called, a tax and spend policy, to a borrow and spend policy, where the government continued its heavy spending, but used borrowed money instead of tax revenue to pay the bills. The results were catastrophic. Although it had taken the United States more than 200 years to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt, it took only five years under Reagan to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt. By the end of the 12 years of the Reagan-Bush administrations, the national debt had quadrupled to $4 trillion!


----------



## JakeStarkey

LBJ was not far left.  Step off, bfgrn.

GHWB was not far right.  Step off, bfgrn.

We need keep the far left and the far right down, and we are not doing very well at it.


----------



## P@triot

Bfgrn said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> As Abe Lincoln once said:
> 
> "Trickle down economics is a bunch of  bullshit, if you cut taxes on the rich.....they just keep the money"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *So the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is "a bunch of bullshit", uh?
> 
> The wealthy in this nation give generously like no other group of people in world history. Every university in this country has buildings named after wealthy people who donated (ie of their own free will) the money necessary to build those facilities.
> 
> Do you have any idea how many hospitals across the nation have facilities that bear the names of people who generously gave millions and millions of dollars?
> 
> Do you have any idea how much the wealthy have given to Shriners Hospitals so children could receive FREE healthcare????
> 
> Do you have any idea how much the wealthy have given to cancer research, AIDS research, and other medical research?
> 
> It's just a FACT that tax cuts for corporations, small business, and the wealthy results in more employment, more charity, more investing, and better conditions for everyone in the U.S.
> 
> The only thing that is "bullshit" is your blatant lie that the "rich just keep the money". And the people on this thread wonder why we have the current political climate we do? It's because of people just like you who hate others who were more successful and try to tear them down with lies.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Time to Step Up: Corporate Charity Accounted for Only 5% of Giving in 2011
> 
> There's a commercial running on television for a data delivery company where a woman who was late to knowing about a neighbor's newborn child is the loudest when acknowledging a gift sent by other neighbors.
> 
> That's just about the way the for-profit sector treats its philanthropy. "Look at us. Look at us. Aren't we great?" There is a conga line of companies lining up for the new "benefit corporation" status in California, constructed for companies that want a do-gooder label. For-profits all want to scream about how much they do for their communities and for philanthropy.
> 
> When the new GivingUSA numbers were posted this week and compared to recent events it was incredible to see that one stock transaction -- Facebook's initial public offering -- raised more money than was given by all of corporate America during 2011.
> 
> more
Click to expand...


Of course - corporations have to make money for their greedy liberal stock holders. They don't have the luxury of passing out money. But you conveniently leave out the wealthy individual (another trait of the left - leaving out the individual in favor of the collective). Lets run the numbers on charity from PEOPLE - not corporations - and lets see what kind of jaw-dropping numbers you find. Bill Gates alone has given $65 billion in his lifetime. One man, a staggering $65 billion.

I have to ask - why is the left so interested in working numbers to make every issue appear different from what it is? Why can't we just have an honest conversation about the numbers?

If you notice in my original post, I never mentioned anything about buildings being named after corporations. I said they were named after PEOPLE. Individuals. Wealthy individuals who have given, and given, and given to charity. And for those amazing acts of kindness, they get villified as "evil" in return by Barack Obama, YOU, and the rest on the left. How sad.


----------



## P@triot

emilynghiem said:


> 5. Then the argument about abortion rights vs. gun rights; where conservatives who don't want govt interfering "at all" with gun rights will go to extreme measures to block proposed legislation they claim is not going to prevent the problem because criminals are going to get guns anyway (and liberals object and blame them for not taking responsibility); and when liberals who don't want govt interfering "at all" with abortion rights go to extreme measures to block any protective legislation, claiming people are going to get abortions anyway, then conservatives object and blame them for the same, etc.



While you make some GREAT points in your post, there is a major flaw in this point (#5).


First of all, the 2nd amendment makes owning guns a RIGHT by the US Constitution - the ultimate law of the land. There is no right to abortion - and there never has been.


Second, gun advocates aren't making any case about the criminal. It's about the law abiding citizen. If we could really rid the world of guns, a criminal could still stab you to death. A criminal could still beat you to death with a baseball bat or a hammer. The gun is for DEFENSE - and F.B.I. stats prove that where conceal carry is permitted, crime plummets.


Third, murder will occur no matter what, yet you've never heard a conservative claim we should legalize it because there is not stopping it. You simply cannot tolerate murder in any capacity. Abortion is just a liberal way of saying MURDER. Would abortions still occur if they were outlawed? Absolutely. Should we tolerate it for that reason? Absolutely *not*.


----------



## P@triot

Bfgrn said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Far Left had power in the 1960s then we destroyed that power.  We will never let it rise up again.  We will do the same to the Far Right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what did that liberal power create Jake? I've been around since Harry Truman was President, so I lived through a good portion of the liberal era that started with the New Deal and ended with the Great Society. It was America's finest moment. It was an era with huge economic growth and shared wealth, fantastic successes in technology, vast expansion of citizen freedoms and liberties and the growth of a middle class that defined this country and made America the 'city on the hill', the envy of the world.
> 
> That era ended at the end of the 1960's and the conservative era began. It has continued ever since. It has been a negative mirror image of the liberal era. We now lead the world only in the dubious like incarcerating human beings, killing innocent people and launching Hirohito sneak attacks on sovereign nations.
> 
> So my question Jake, what blame do Republicans and conservatives deserve? You can't have the power, profess 'personable responsibility', then turn around and blame those without power.
> 
> What was our debt during the liberal era Jake? JFK and LBJ faced a SURPLUS.
> 
> Where did our debt come from? When did massive debt become part of the American economy?
> 
> Reagan switched the federal government from what he critically called, a tax and spend policy, to a borrow and spend policy, where the government continued its heavy spending, but used borrowed money instead of tax revenue to pay the bills. The results were catastrophic. Although it had taken the United States more than 200 years to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt, it took only five years under Reagan to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt. By the end of the 12 years of the Reagan-Bush administrations, the national debt had quadrupled to $4 trillion!
Click to expand...


Funny, Barack Obama has added more to the national debt in 3.5 years than all US Presidents in history combined did during that same time, and yet you don't mention that.

The New Deal was the Raw Deal, and even the left knows it. They just won't admit. It's when the US abandoned Constitutional government, and that is simply unforgivable.

One simple question Bfgrn - if the rise of the liberal movement was so "good", then why did the Democrats feel the need to circumvent the US Constitution in every action it took? For example - Obamacare. If having health care were a right (or, if the federal government truly had the power to force citizens to engage in commerce), then why would the Democrats simply amend the Constitution to reflect that and then legally pass their legislation?

(Answer: because everything they are doing is WRONG and catastrophic to this country, and the American people _know_ it. Therefore, the Democrats can't get the votes necessary to amend the constitution for their communist-like policies.)


----------



## JakeStarkey

False analogy of right to guns and right to abortion.

Abortion is not murder.



Rottweiler said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 5. Then the argument about abortion rights vs. gun rights; where conservatives who don't want govt interfering "at all" with gun rights will go to extreme measures to block proposed legislation they claim is not going to prevent the problem because criminals are going to get guns anyway (and liberals object and blame them for not taking responsibility); and when liberals who don't want govt interfering "at all" with abortion rights go to extreme measures to block any protective legislation, claiming people are going to get abortions anyway, then conservatives object and blame them for the same, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While you make some GREAT points in your post, there is a major flaw in this point (#5).
> 
> 
> First of all, the 2nd amendment makes owning guns a RIGHT by the US Constitution - the ultimate law of the land. There is no right to abortion - and there never has been.
> 
> 
> Second, gun advocates aren't making any case about the criminal. It's about the law abiding citizen. If we could really rid the world of guns, a criminal could still stab you to death. A criminal could still beat you to death with a baseball bat or a hammer. The gun is for DEFENSE - and F.B.I. stats prove that where conceal carry is permitted, crime plummets.
> 
> 
> Third, murder will occur no matter what, yet you've never heard a conservative claim we should legalize it because there is not stopping it. You simply cannot tolerate murder in any capacity. Abortion is just a liberal way of saying MURDER. Would abortions still occur if they were outlawed? Absolutely. Should we tolerate it for that reason? Absolutely *not*.
Click to expand...


----------



## Bfgrn

JakeStarkey said:


> LBJ was not far left.  Step off, bfgrn.
> 
> GHWB was not far right.  Step off, bfgrn.
> 
> We need keep the far left and the far right down, and we are not doing very well at it.



Your answers are getting shorter and more vague. You did not address anything I said. You are now reduced to chanting.

There has been a drastic shift to the right in America in my lifetime. What was once the political center has been ripped to the right Jake. It was bought and paid for by people who consider you and I as fodder. It is a combination of a lot of things, but none of them are good for democracy or will benefit the working men and women who are the backbone of We, the People. We are now being sneered at by the candidate you support, and you just nod your head...truly sad.


----------



## JakeStarkey

You have had nothing worthwhile to say, bfgrn.

There is a far left in America, and more than once it threatened the stability of the country with its violence.  It is not particularly dangerous at the moment because its folks are weak and cowardly.


----------



## jtpr312

Who gives a crap what liberals think of Abe Lincoln, those idiots still think he freed the slaves and was a paragon of love your fellow negro.


----------



## Bfgrn

JakeStarkey said:


> You have had nothing worthwhile to say, bfgrn.
> 
> There is a far left in America, and more than once it threatened the stability of the country with its violence.  It is not particularly dangerous at the moment because its folks are weak and cowardly.



Weak, cowardly and at the same time violent...a paradox of epic proportions.

When was this Jake? At Kent State when 4 honor students were violently gunned down in broad daylight?


----------



## JakeStarkey

That crowd was violent.  Someone in that crowd fired a handgun prior to the NG volley.  The UCSB riot that burned down a bank and killed a person.  The bombing at the U of W killed a janitor.  The weathermen.  The tuffs at CSU at Fullerton who were so tuff that the Orange County riot squad demanding that snipers be set up before the squad deployed.

You are no more innocent that the Far Righties who believe there is only one good side, theirs.  I am not impressed at all by your belligerence when you are so ignorant of basic facts.  You would make a good Tea Bagger.


----------



## Bfgrn

JakeStarkey said:


> That crowd was violent.  Someone in that crowd fired a handgun prior to the NG volley.  The UCSB riot that burned down a bank and killed a person.  The bombing at the U of W killed a janitor.  The weathermen.  The tuffs at CSU at Fullerton who were so tuff that the Orange County riot squad demanding that snipers be set up before the squad deployed.
> 
> You are no more innocent that the Far Righties who believe there is only one good side, theirs.  I am not impressed at all by your belligerence when you are so ignorant of basic facts.  You would make a good Tea Bagger.



Your 'facts' are incorrect, so what does that make you Jake? 

The first shots fired at Kent State came from Sgt. Myron Pryor, who turned and began firing at the students with his .45 pistol. None of the protesters had weapons.

The only fatality at Isla Vista was 22-year-old UCSB student Kevin Moran who was shot and killed. Although the police claimed the bullet originated from a sniper in the crowd, a ballistics test determined that it came from policeman's rifle. The incident was deemed an accident, and the officer was later exonerated.

The violence started as a group of students walked back toward Isla Vista after a speech by William Kunstler, police beat 22-year-old student Rich Underwood into submission and arrested him for carrying a bottle of wine they assumed was a Molotov cocktail.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo

oreo said:


> *"You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred. You cannot build character and courage by taking away people's initiative and independence. You cannot help people permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves." *--Abraham Lincoln
> 
> 
> O.K. Liberals explain this one--
> 
> *This is probably the best quote I have seen from any President.*  Apparently our politicians with all their Harvard Law degrees--still don't get it.  This quote from someone that had to teach himself how to read & write while using a candle to illuminate the pages of his books so he could read.



So why did Mitt Romney decide to incite class hatred by classifying almost the entire lower half of income earners as government dependent who think of themselves as victims?


----------



## JakeStarkey

I said, "Someone in that crowd fired a handgun prior to the NG volley."  Sgt Pryor's statement is problematic and not believed by many.  Innocents died because of lefty rioting.  Those are the facts, Bfgrn.

You only look silly when you mess with those who are better informed and more literate than you.  Be polite, and I will take it easy on you.



Bfgrn said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> That crowd was violent.  Someone in that crowd fired a handgun prior to the NG volley.  The UCSB riot that burned down a bank and killed a person.  The bombing at the U of W killed a janitor.  The weathermen.  The tuffs at CSU at Fullerton who were so tuff that the Orange County riot squad demanding that snipers be set up before the squad deployed.
> 
> You are no more innocent that the Far Righties who believe there is only one good side, theirs.  I am not impressed at all by your belligerence when you are so ignorant of basic facts.  You would make a good Tea Bagger.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your 'facts' are incorrect, so what does that make you Jake?
> 
> The first shots fired at Kent State came from Sgt. Myron Pryor, who turned and began firing at the students with his .45 pistol. None of the protesters had weapons.
> 
> The only fatality at Isla Vista was 22-year-old UCSB student Kevin Moran who was shot and killed. Although the police claimed the bullet originated from a sniper in the crowd, a ballistics test determined that it came from policeman's rifle. The incident was deemed an accident, and the officer was later exonerated.
> 
> The violence started as a group of students walked back toward Isla Vista after a speech by William Kunstler, police beat 22-year-old student Rich Underwood into submission and arrested him for carrying a bottle of wine they assumed was a Molotov cocktail.
Click to expand...


----------



## Bfgrn

JakeStarkey said:


> I said, "Someone in that crowd fired a handgun prior to the NG volley."  Sgt Pryor's statement is problematic and not believed by many.  Innocents died because of lefty rioting.  Those are the facts, Bfgrn.
> 
> You only look silly when you mess with those who are better informed and more literate than you.  Be polite, and I will take it easy on you.
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> That crowd was violent.  Someone in that crowd fired a handgun prior to the NG volley.  The UCSB riot that burned down a bank and killed a person.  The bombing at the U of W killed a janitor.  The weathermen.  The tuffs at CSU at Fullerton who were so tuff that the Orange County riot squad demanding that snipers be set up before the squad deployed.
> 
> You are no more innocent that the Far Righties who believe there is only one good side, theirs.  I am not impressed at all by your belligerence when you are so ignorant of basic facts.  You would make a good Tea Bagger.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your 'facts' are incorrect, so what does that make you Jake?
> 
> The first shots fired at Kent State came from Sgt. Myron Pryor, who turned and began firing at the students with his .45 pistol. None of the protesters had weapons.
> 
> The only fatality at Isla Vista was 22-year-old UCSB student Kevin Moran who was shot and killed. Although the police claimed the bullet originated from a sniper in the crowd, a ballistics test determined that it came from policeman's rifle. The incident was deemed an accident, and the officer was later exonerated.
> 
> The violence started as a group of students walked back toward Isla Vista after a speech by William Kunstler, police beat 22-year-old student Rich Underwood into submission and arrested him for carrying a bottle of wine they assumed was a Molotov cocktail.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Sorry Jake, you're dealing with someone who is not going to buy your crap. All your chest beating does is expose how insecure your really are. It is an epidemic among conservatives. 

All you have to do to refute that first shots fired at Kent State came from Sgt. Myron Pryor is to produce a weapon and ballistics.

I'll be waiting Jake.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Sorry, son, your cover is gone, and no one is buying you except the far left.  I don't have to refute what has not been proved.  That is your problem.

Some little lefty punk had a hand gun, provoked a fire fight with the NG, and the left is innocent.

Not buying your lying story, even all these years later.


----------



## Bfgrn

JakeStarkey said:


> Sorry, son, your cover is gone, and no one is buying you except the far left.  I don't have to refute what has not been proved.  That is your problem.
> 
> Some little lefty punk had a hand gun, provoked a fire fight with the NG, and the left is innocent.
> 
> Not buying your lying story, even all these years later.



Jake, you are misinformed or lying. And worse than that, you are siding with the executioners. But, hey Jake, they were just 'leftists', not real Americans like you. Even though they were unarmed and gunned down in broad daylight, I'm sure we could find some crime they committed that deserved execution... maybe vandalism or some other 'leftist' 'capital' crime? 

The 1975 Civil Trial and Captain Ron Snyder

After I wrote the article about Stuart Allen, saying he detected a second and actual order to fire (which no newspaper in the country, including the Daily Kent Stater, covered) I heard from John Mangels, the Plain Dealer's science reporter. Mangels was the author of the three front-page stories that gave rise to the calls for a new investigation. That made him, as far as I am concerned, one of the unsung heroes of May 4. He reminded me that he interviewed Captain Ron Snyder for his initial story on May 9, 2010, and that Snyder (like Captain Martin and Sergeant Matthew McManus) challenged Allen's finding, claiming the preliminary order did not sound like an order someone in the military would give. 

That had completely slipped my mind, probably because Ron "Cynanide" Snyder is not a source I ever gave much credence to. That is partially because Snyder was not even among the squad that opened fire that day and thus, was not in a position to know what really happened. His unit was on the other side of Taylor Hall when the shootings broke, and the building completely blocked his view.

Also, I still cannot get out of my head something said about *Snyder after he originally told author James Michener, the Akron Beacon Journal, and a state grand jury that he confiscated a gun and brass knuckles off the body of slain student Jeffrey Miller. Snyder subsequently admitted he fabricated this claim because he wanted to make the victims seem dangerous, thereby making the shootings look justifiable.* Snyder decided to come clean after the Justice Department started investigating this claim. I saw papers on Judge Frank Battisti's law clerk's desk suggesting  the Justice Department seriously considered indicting him for perjury before the original state grand jury.  

ref

It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners.
Albert Camus


----------



## emilynghiem

Bfgrn said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course the Far Left is as crazy, Emily, as is the Far Right.
> 
> Either the good people America crush both extremes, or one side or the other will lead us to slaughter.
> 
> 
> 
> What you fail to realize is that the "far left" has no power in this country. BOTH parties are right of center. It is a dangerous place to be.
Click to expand...


Dear JakeS and Bfgrn:
Both the Left and the Right will bias their own media and information sources/networks to keep feeding the same propaganda to their respective followers en masse.  The power to either keep exploiting conflicts by conveniently blaming the other group, or to SOLVE problems by promoting and replicating working programs as models, lies in these relationships and "circles of influence".  All people have access to power this way. Whether or not we use it, or we defer authority and action to others to tell us what to think and do, reflects in our attitudes that in turn influence the people around us to act or not to act, and/or to depend on other people or groups.

Both Left and Right will complain that the other is controlling the masses through the media.  We all have equal power to influence the people, relations and institutions within our circles, through our thoughts, words and actions.  Fighting over power -- with fear-based competition and conflict with other groups, and oppressing people by lack of knowledge of how to use their existing resources to effect change "regardless" of what other people do and who holds office -- is part of the game that partisan politics takes advantage of.  The best way I know to overcome this gameplaying, which feeds media biat as on both sides of any issue "conveniently polarized" to incite and divide, is to encourage people to find, align and focus on points of agreement and solutions both sides believe are effective approaches to a given problem, INSTEAD of focusing on unresolved faults or issues to discredit and justify rejecting the opposing side.  

More of these issues will be corrected, and progress made in govt and social reform, by combining team efforts and resources to achieve common goals, in ways that no one opposes, if people are truly sincere about ending the problems being criticized, and are not just using them as an excuse to blame another group to gain political favor or power.

The real power to change comes from within people, and within groups; not forcing change from the outside which is naturally met with rejection and projected blame trying to force the opposing side to change instead. We know that does not work, but ends in deadlock. As long as we insist on continuing this way in conflict, we invite other people, groups, and especially govt to step in and make decisions for us.  However, where we take responsibility BACK on ourselves for solving our own problems, and organize support and resources around things that work, that's where "people are the govt" and have authority to tell govt what to do that represents public interests, not vice versa where we depend on govt to rescue us from whatever "other group" we fear is trying to take over control and influence.


----------



## JakeStarkey

A liar tells part of the story and let's the rest go.  Bfgrn, you are a liar,not uninformed.  I will give you the opportunity to put in all of the information.

Go for it.



Bfgrn said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, son, your cover is gone, and no one is buying you except the far left.  I don't have to refute what has not been proved.  That is your problem.
> 
> Some little lefty punk had a hand gun, provoked a fire fight with the NG, and the left is innocent.
> 
> Not buying your lying story, even all these years later.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jake, you are misinformed or lying. And worse than that, you are siding with the executioners. But, hey Jake, they were just 'leftists', not real Americans like you. Even though they were unarmed and gunned down in broad daylight, I'm sure we could find some crime they committed that deserved execution... maybe vandalism or some other 'leftist' 'capital' crime?
> 
> The 1975 Civil Trial and Captain Ron Snyder
> 
> After I wrote the article about Stuart Allen, saying he detected a second and actual order to fire (which no newspaper in the country, including the Daily Kent Stater, covered) I heard from John Mangels, the Plain Dealer's science reporter. Mangels was the author of the three front-page stories that gave rise to the calls for a new investigation. That made him, as far as I am concerned, one of the unsung heroes of May 4. He reminded me that he interviewed Captain Ron Snyder for his initial story on May 9, 2010, and that Snyder (like Captain Martin and Sergeant Matthew McManus) challenged Allen's finding, claiming the preliminary order did not sound like an order someone in the military would give.
> 
> That had completely slipped my mind, probably because Ron "Cynanide" Snyder is not a source I ever gave much credence to. That is partially because Snyder was not even among the squad that opened fire that day and thus, was not in a position to know what really happened. His unit was on the other side of Taylor Hall when the shootings broke, and the building completely blocked his view.
> 
> Also, I still cannot get out of my head something said about *Snyder after he originally told author James Michener, the Akron Beacon Journal, and a state grand jury that he confiscated a gun and brass knuckles off the body of slain student Jeffrey Miller. Snyder subsequently admitted he fabricated this claim because he wanted to make the victims seem dangerous, thereby making the shootings look justifiable.* Snyder decided to come clean after the Justice Department started investigating this claim. I saw papers on Judge Frank Battisti's law clerk's desk suggesting  the Justice Department seriously considered indicting him for perjury before the original state grand jury.
> 
> ref
> 
> It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners.
> Albert Camus
Click to expand...


----------



## JakeStarkey

Whatever.  Bfgrn is a lefty liar in his lefty lair.



emilynghiem said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course the Far Left is as crazy, Emily, as is the Far Right.
> 
> Either the good people America crush both extremes, or one side or the other will lead us to slaughter.
> 
> 
> 
> What you fail to realize is that the "far left" has no power in this country. BOTH parties are right of center. It is a dangerous place to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear JakeS and Bfgrn:
> Both the Left and the Right will bias their own media and information sources/networks to keep feeding the same propaganda to their respective followers en masse.  The power to either keep exploiting conflicts by conveniently blaming the other group, or to SOLVE problems by promoting and replicating working programs as models, lies in these relationships and "circles of influence".  All people have access to power this way. Whether or not we use it, or we defer authority and action to others to tell us what to think and do, reflects in our attitudes that in turn influence the people around us to act or not to act, and/or to depend on other people or groups.
> 
> Both Left and Right will complain that the other is controlling the masses through the media.  We all have equal power to influence the people, relations and institutions within our circles, through our thoughts, words and actions.  Fighting over power -- with fear-based competition and conflict with other groups, and oppressing people by lack of knowledge of how to use their existing resources to effect change "regardless" of what other people do and who holds office -- is part of the game that partisan politics takes advantage of.  The best way I know to overcome this gameplaying, which feeds media biat as on both sides of any issue "conveniently polarized" to incite and divide, is to encourage people to find, align and focus on points of agreement and solutions both sides believe are effective approaches to a given problem, INSTEAD of focusing on unresolved faults or issues to discredit and justify rejecting the opposing side.
> 
> More of these issues will be corrected, and progress made in govt and social reform, by combining team efforts and resources to achieve common goals, in ways that no one opposes, if people are truly sincere about ending the problems being criticized, and are not just using them as an excuse to blame another group to gain political favor or power.
> 
> The real power to change comes from within people, and within groups; not forcing change from the outside which is naturally met with rejection and projected blame trying to force the opposing side to change instead. We know that does not work, but ends in deadlock. As long as we insist on continuing this way in conflict, we invite other people, groups, and especially govt to step in and make decisions for us.  However, where we take responsibility BACK on ourselves for solving our own problems, and organize support and resources around things that work, that's where "people are the govt" and have authority to tell govt what to do that represents public interests, not vice versa where we depend on govt to rescue us from whatever "other group" we fear is trying to take over control and influence.
Click to expand...


----------



## emilynghiem

Dear Bfgrn and JakeS:

The common factor in these issues of excessive force, "collective punishment" (justifying punishment or harm caused to innocent people for the sake of policing or deterring larger populations), or even pre-emptive strikes by govt and law enforcement is whether the image of unrelenting authority is necessary for security and is justified in one case or another.  You can point to "Bush's War" where people still argue to this day if attacking Iraq was justified lawful or Constitutional, and even if it was not fully proper, it is necessary to respect military and govt decisions for social law and order. I don't believe in collective punishment, but I understand and accept why it happens.

It's really different versions of the same dilemma.
The issue of "govt immunity" runs into all kinds of cases of abuses, some going public, while others are swept under the rug; it's really a gamble if you will see justice in this or that case.
For every case you may oppose as wrong, there are others you may forgive as collateral damage; while someone else will argue it was the other way around, from their perspective. 

What IF police/govt/military make a mistake and commit injustice.
When is it better not to question authority because anything viewed as rebellion is a threat to law enforcement, integrity and deterrence using force to command respect, etc. And When is it a threat to public integrity and trust to let people get away with injustice?

The common point is to try to PREVENT such catch-22 situations from happening in the first place. No one disagrees that is ideal. But once such a incident happens:
How DO you go about redressing grievances concerning govt abuse or corruption
WITHOUT threatening the social order and respect for authority, where these
charges seen as a threat are met with denial instead to keep the system going

Until we set up a better system for redressing grievances, such as by conflict resolution, (unlike the legal and political system too easily won over by bullying, denial and projection), we will continue to see these cases come up again and again, with people on both sides not trusting the other to tell the truth but assuming each is motivated by political agenda.



Bfgrn said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said, "Someone in that crowd fired a handgun prior to the NG volley."  Sgt Pryor's statement is problematic and not believed by many.  Innocents died because of lefty rioting.  Those are the facts, Bfgrn.
> 
> You only look silly when you mess with those who are better informed and more literate than you.  Be polite, and I will take it easy on you.
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your 'facts' are incorrect, so what does that make you Jake?
> 
> The first shots fired at Kent State came from Sgt. Myron Pryor, who turned and began firing at the students with his .45 pistol. None of the protesters had weapons.
> 
> The only fatality at Isla Vista was 22-year-old UCSB student Kevin Moran who was shot and killed. Although the police claimed the bullet originated from a sniper in the crowd, a ballistics test determined that it came from policeman's rifle. The incident was deemed an accident, and the officer was later exonerated.
> 
> The violence started as a group of students walked back toward Isla Vista after a speech by William Kunstler, police beat 22-year-old student Rich Underwood into submission and arrested him for carrying a bottle of wine they assumed was a Molotov cocktail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry Jake, you're dealing with someone who is not going to buy your crap. All your chest beating does is expose how insecure your really are. It is an epidemic among conservatives.
> 
> All you have to do to refute that first shots fired at Kent State came from Sgt. Myron Pryor is to produce a weapon and ballistics.
> 
> I'll be waiting Jake.
Click to expand...


----------



## Samson

emilynghiem said:


> Dear Bfgrn and JakeS:
> 
> The common factor in these issues of excessive force, "collective punishment" (justifying punishment or harm caused to innocent people for the sake of policing or deterring larger populations), or even pre-emptive strikes by govt and law enforcement is whether the image of unrelenting authority is necessary for security and is justified in one case or another.  You can point to "Bush's War" where people still argue to this day if attacking Iraq was justified lawful or Constitutional, and even if it was not fully proper, it is necessary to respect military and govt decisions for social law and order. I don't believe in collective punishment, but I understand and accept why it happens.



Obviously you DO "believe in" collective punishment: You mean that YOU wouldn't use collective punishment. How would you know?

They only way you would know is if you have managed the activities of others: I submit that either you've never done it, or everyone has always agreed that you lead and they follow.


----------



## Bfgrn

JakeStarkey said:


> A liar tells part of the story and let's the rest go.  Bfgrn, you are a liar,not uninformed.  I will give you the opportunity to put in all of the information.
> 
> Go for it.
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, son, your cover is gone, and no one is buying you except the far left.  I don't have to refute what has not been proved.  That is your problem.
> 
> Some little lefty punk had a hand gun, provoked a fire fight with the NG, and the left is innocent.
> 
> Not buying your lying story, even all these years later.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jake, you are misinformed or lying. And worse than that, you are siding with the executioners. But, hey Jake, they were just 'leftists', not real Americans like you. Even though they were unarmed and gunned down in broad daylight, I'm sure we could find some crime they committed that deserved execution... maybe vandalism or some other 'leftist' 'capital' crime?
> 
> The 1975 Civil Trial and Captain Ron Snyder
> 
> After I wrote the article about Stuart Allen, saying he detected a second and actual order to fire (which no newspaper in the country, including the Daily Kent Stater, covered) I heard from John Mangels, the Plain Dealer's science reporter. Mangels was the author of the three front-page stories that gave rise to the calls for a new investigation. That made him, as far as I am concerned, one of the unsung heroes of May 4. He reminded me that he interviewed Captain Ron Snyder for his initial story on May 9, 2010, and that Snyder (like Captain Martin and Sergeant Matthew McManus) challenged Allen's finding, claiming the preliminary order did not sound like an order someone in the military would give.
> 
> That had completely slipped my mind, probably because Ron "Cynanide" Snyder is not a source I ever gave much credence to. That is partially because Snyder was not even among the squad that opened fire that day and thus, was not in a position to know what really happened. His unit was on the other side of Taylor Hall when the shootings broke, and the building completely blocked his view.
> 
> Also, I still cannot get out of my head something said about *Snyder after he originally told author James Michener, the Akron Beacon Journal, and a state grand jury that he confiscated a gun and brass knuckles off the body of slain student Jeffrey Miller. Snyder subsequently admitted he fabricated this claim because he wanted to make the victims seem dangerous, thereby making the shootings look justifiable.* Snyder decided to come clean after the Justice Department started investigating this claim. I saw papers on Judge Frank Battisti's law clerk's desk suggesting  the Justice Department seriously considered indicting him for perjury before the original state grand jury.
> 
> ref
> 
> It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners.
> Albert Camus
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Hey Jake, the Kent State executions happened on Monday, May 4, 1970. Some 42 years ago. There were numerous investigations, civil trials and a government commission. 

ONE person, the Adjutant General of the Ohio National Guard, who was NOT THERE, told reporters that a sniper had fired on the guardsmen, which itself remains a debated allegation. None of the guardsmen, who WERE THERE, on campus corroborate his accusation. 

The President's Commission on Campus Unrest avoided probing the question of why the shootings happened. Instead, it harshly criticized both the protesters and the Guardsmen, but it concluded that "the indiscriminate firing of rifles into a crowd of students and the deaths that followed were unnecessary, unwarranted, and inexcusable."

But like I said, they were just 'leftists', not REAL Americans like you Jake. They did not conform, so they must be executed.

Equality, rightly understood as our founding fathers understood it, leads to liberty and to the emancipation of creative differences; wrongly understood, as it has been so tragically in our time, it leads first to conformity and then to despotism. 
Barry Goldwater


----------

