How come Lincoln got away with shutting down hundreds of newspapers and jailed journalists

[NightFox]

Ok, i get what you are saying now. But now i feel like that is a false equivalency lol
Trump was talking about kicking out an outlet from the WH press briefing. Lincoln jailed and shut down newspapers.
Has trump mentioned arrest, suspension of habeas corpus without congressional approval or shutting down outlets?
Is what Trump mentioned unconstitutional? Will it involve wrongful imprisonment?
Maybe im getting too semantic but i feel like the differences are huge.

Again you appear to be attempting to diminish or mitigate what Trump is doing by comparing it to what Lincoln did.

Trump using the bully pulpit of his office in an attempt to selectively intimidate journalists and the organizations they work for is immoral as well as in complete violation of the original intent of the first Amendment not to mention unethical , period, end of story, nothing any former President did mitigates that fact.

obama was pretty damn bad about press abuse. hell he started a lot of the division when he went after FOX News.

then he went after and spied on any journalist that spoke badly of him or what he was doing.

You're right, President Nimrod was guilty of egregious abuses of his office with respect to the treatment of the press, in fact there were quite a few Presidents that abused their authority with respect to the press.

Trump should be striving to achieve a higher standard not working to out do his predecessors in the breadth and depth of such abuses. Of course that would require that the citizenry start demanding higher standards which doesn't appear to be the case, quite the opposite in fact.

 

[iceberg]

Ok, i get what you are saying now. But now i feel like that is a false equivalency lol
Trump was talking about kicking out an outlet from the WH press briefing. Lincoln jailed and shut down newspapers.
Has trump mentioned arrest, suspension of habeas corpus without congressional approval or shutting down outlets?
Is what Trump mentioned unconstitutional? Will it involve wrongful imprisonment?
Maybe im getting too semantic but i feel like the differences are huge.

Again you appear to be attempting to diminish or mitigate what Trump is doing by comparing it to what Lincoln did.

Trump using the bully pulpit of his office in an attempt to selectively intimidate journalists and the organizations they work for is immoral as well as in complete violation of the original intent of the first Amendment not to mention unethical , period, end of story, nothing any former President did mitigates that fact.

obama was pretty damn bad about press abuse. hell he started a lot of the division when he went after FOX News.

then he went after and spied on any journalist that spoke badly of him or what he was doing.

You're right, President Nimrod was guilty of egregious abuses of his office with respect to the treatment of the press, in fact there were quite a few Presidents that abused their authority with respect to the press.

Trump should be striving to achieve a higher standard not working to out do his predecessors in the breadth and depth of such abuses. Of course that would require that the citizenry start demanding higher standards which doesn't appear to be the case, quite the opposite in fact.

yep.

someone wants to rag on trumps treatment of the press, i'm in. but if they're foolish enough to think it started here this round - i'm in to correct that notion.

we've long since past the time where wrong should be wrong for us all and we're in very dangerous territory where we'll allow our side to do greater wrong to even up the wrongs from the other side. we're so deep into revenge politics it's killing us.

obama had no business chiming into every social situation with his views. he had no business going after fox and starting the division of press wars. he had no business spying on reporters who didn't kiss his ass but he did. and hard.

trouble is, when you find reasons to excuse blatant behavior like this out of hatred for the "other side" you only give the other side the ability to do at least as much, or more. trump is now whaling in all press out in the open and took the war even further.

as it happens when you don't reel in your own side.

nixon was pretty damn bad also but that's going back aways.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

This has been gone over before and never refuted, so, of course, it is forgotten and we have to go over it again for the obtuse.
It has to do with language and the meaning of words and actions. It was so discreet, so intertwined that later people missed it, but it was there at the time.
The Articles of Confederation formed a Perpetual Union, and all the States signed. Those signing were educated people (all white male landowners, by the way) who understood English well, quite well compared to most of what we see in threads here.
Some time later, it was judged wise to modify the agreement and form a 'more perfect Union'. Notice that "more" is a comparative term. The Union that existed was being improved, not abrogated. It was not another union, it was a logical continuation of the Perpetual Union, as all at the time understood. Otherwise, these astute, educated men would have mentioned creating a new union.
Now, the only reason to reject this is the argument that the new Constitution was not legal because it was not really approved in the fashion described in the original articles. In that case, the Perpetual Union was and is in effect because the later document is null.
It is an insult to the intelligence of those who wrote and approved the documents to maintain they didn't understand what they were doing.
P.S. link:Our Federal Union! It Must Be Preserved! - Dictionary definition of Our Federal Union! It Must Be Preserved! | Encyclopedia.com: FREE online dictionary
"OUR FEDERAL UNION! IT MUST BE PRESERVED!" was President Andrew Jackson's volunteer toast delivered at the annual Democratic Jefferson Day dinner on 13 April 1830 in response to the South Carolina senator Robert Hayne's pronullification speech. Hayne's speech and the toasts that followed were intended to display a united front for states' rights within the party. Jackson became aware of the plan before the dinner, and he decided to pronounce finally his position on nullification and win back the initiative. To the attendees' shock, Jackson, often identified with states' rights, declared his opposition to nullification and proclaimed his belief in a supreme, perpetual Union. This episode foreshadowed Jackson's successful confrontation with the South Carolina nullifiers, led by Vice President John C. Calhoun, in 1832–1833.
Jackson, an otherwise "states rights" Southerner said this because he understood the spirit, original intent and the very words that established the Union.
People can rebel, and often have. People can break their words and promises, and often have.
Sometimes they succeed, sometimes they don't.

Then, Jefferson was wrong when he stated that the original 13 colonies were "free and independent" states?

"Perpetual" as used in the Articles of Confederation could not have meant never-ending without the ability to reform or dissolve. It only meant that the union did not have a sundown on it, nor a need to renew it. If "perpetual" meant what you say, the Constitution could not have been enacted. There is no such language in the Constitution.

Either way, none of this nonsense justifies the actions of Lincoln. None of it. Tyranny is tyranny, regardless of the "good intentions" behind such tyranny.

Scholars view the Civil War as the final determination between Jeffersonian and Hamiltonian philosophies.
Jefferson lost.

So might makes right, eh, douchebag?

Yes..fool. In history..and on the battlefield. The United States won..the Confederacy lost. In the end, that's all that matters. The rest is just self-justifying BS.

As a patriotic American, I'm OK with the outcome. If a modern analogue to the Civil War should arise, I know what side I'm on..the side my family has always been on..The United States.

The thinking of the statist...on display for all to see. They will gladly kill their fellow countrymen to keep a criminal state in place.

I wonder...without statists, would the ruling class exist? The statists are the brown shirts that keep the criminal ruling class in power.

***yawn***

Bakunin is long dead...his philosophy of opposing all hierarchies was, and remains, unworkable. Humans form hierarchies by nature..some lead..some wish to be led.
Better to control this--through rule of law...than to allow the unbridled excesses that 'Anarchy' would bring.
Implicit in every anarchist's argument, whether they know it or not, is the premise that a whole lot of people must die--for their 'free' and 'unfettered' world to work. Without the State..there is no infrastructure..no mechanism to feed the billions..no mechanism to administer justice, no matter how flawed..no body of law...no common currency...no social safety net....no mandate to educate....no continuity.

Anarchy is a process, not a place....and it will always lead back to what you term 'statism' .

So, enjoy your pipe dream...post your rhetoric..and know that you lost this argument before you even started.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

When you are trying to save the country, you get a little lattitude

Ah, the rationalization of pure tyranny.

It was for the “greater good” that nearly a million people had to die.


Fuck the “greater good.” That is just an excuse to screw the individual.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Then, Jefferson was wrong when he stated that the original 13 colonies were "free and independent" states?

"Perpetual" as used in the Articles of Confederation could not have meant never-ending without the ability to reform or dissolve. It only meant that the union did not have a sundown on it, nor a need to renew it. If "perpetual" meant what you say, the Constitution could not have been enacted. There is no such language in the Constitution.

Either way, none of this nonsense justifies the actions of Lincoln. None of it. Tyranny is tyranny, regardless of the "good intentions" behind such tyranny.

Scholars view the Civil War as the final determination between Jeffersonian and Hamiltonian philosophies.
Jefferson lost.

So might makes right, eh, douchebag?

Yes..fool. In history..and on the battlefield. The United States won..the Confederacy lost. In the end, that's all that matters. The rest is just self-justifying BS.

As a patriotic American, I'm OK with the outcome. If a modern analogue to the Civil War should arise, I know what side I'm on..the side my family has always been on..The United States.

The thinking of the statist...on display for all to see. They will gladly kill their fellow countrymen to keep a criminal state in place.

I wonder...without statists, would the ruling class exist? The statists are the brown shirts that keep the criminal ruling class in power.

***yawn***

Bakunin is long dead...his philosophy of opposing all hierarchies was, and remains, unworkable. Humans form hierarchies by nature..some lead..some wish to be led.
Better to control this--through rule of law...than to allow the unbridled excesses that 'Anarchy' would bring.
Implicit in every anarchist's argument, whether they know it or not, is the premise that a whole lot of people must die--for their 'free' and 'unfettered' world to work. Without the State..there is no infrastructure..no mechanism to feed the billions..no mechanism to administer justice, no matter how flawed..no body of law...no common currency...no social safety net....no mandate to educate....no continuity.

Anarchy is a process, not a place....and it will always lead back to what you term 'statism' .

So, enjoy your pipe dream...post your rhetoric..and know that you lost this argument before you even started.

I know what you are saying. Anarchy can only exist in a vacuum.

But, the purpose of society is to benefit the individual by allowing for the peaceful pursuit of happiness (food and fucking).

History proves time and time again that the longer the state exists, the less the individual benefits from society. We're getting really tired of it.

I just hope things change before enough people decide that the current structure is too heavy a burden. The number of people Lincoln killed will be spit in the ocean compared to the bodies that war will pile up.

 

[gipper]

Spooner for the win.

Slavery ended everywhere in the West, without bloodshed...except for you know who. Thanks to Dishonest Abe.

Slavery would have ended in the US peacefully too, if only Dishonest Abe hadn't existed.

That's true. Every other country ended slavery without a so-called civil war.

There was actually a constitutional amendment introduced to abolish slavery prior to the warm but it didn't get support from Lincoln. Around 1860, I think it was. Nobody ever talks about that, though.

There's a really good book out there that I think many could benefit from reading. The Real Abraham Lincoln, by Tom DiLorenzo.

The Real Lincoln - Wikipedia

Read that book when it was first published. One of the best historical books ever written. It should be required reading in the government schools, but never will.

 

[gipper]

Spooner for the win.

Slavery ended everywhere in the West, without bloodshed...except for you know who. Thanks to Dishonest Abe.

Slavery would have ended in the US peacefully too, if only Dishonest Abe hadn't existed.

That's true. Every other country ended racism without a so-called civil war.

There was actually a constitutional amendment introduced to abolish slavery prior to the warm but it didn't get support from Lincoln. Around 1860, I think it was. Nobody ever talks about that, though.

There's a really good book out there that I think many could benefit from reading. The Real Abraham Lincoln, by Tom DiLorenzo.

The Real Lincoln - Wikipedia

Nobody cares..Lincoln is dead..The Civil War is over. The South lost. It's now 2018.

Yeah let’s ignore history so we can repeat it’s many mistakes. So thinks the statist.

 

[Votto]

Spooner for the win.

Slavery ended everywhere in the West, without bloodshed...except for you know who. Thanks to Dishonest Abe.

Slavery would have ended in the US peacefully too, if only Dishonest Abe hadn't existed.

That's true. Every other country ended racism without a so-called civil war.

There was actually a constitutional amendment introduced to abolish slavery prior to the warm but it didn't get support from Lincoln. Around 1860, I think it was. Nobody ever talks about that, though.

There's a really good book out there that I think many could benefit from reading. The Real Abraham Lincoln, by Tom DiLorenzo.

The Real Lincoln - Wikipedia

Nobody cares..Lincoln is dead..The Civil War is over. The South lost. It's now 2018.

And he has his massive memorial to be adored and worshipped by the masses in DC, along with his partner in crime FDR.

All other Presidents are crap it seems.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Spooner for the win.

Slavery ended everywhere in the West, without bloodshed...except for you know who. Thanks to Dishonest Abe.

Slavery would have ended in the US peacefully too, if only Dishonest Abe hadn't existed.

That's true. Every other country ended racism without a so-called civil war.

There was actually a constitutional amendment introduced to abolish slavery prior to the warm but it didn't get support from Lincoln. Around 1860, I think it was. Nobody ever talks about that, though.

There's a really good book out there that I think many could benefit from reading. The Real Abraham Lincoln, by Tom DiLorenzo.

The Real Lincoln - Wikipedia

Nobody cares..Lincoln is dead..The Civil War is over. The South lost. It's now 2018.

And he has his massive memorial to be adored and worshipped by the masses in DC, along with his partner in crime FDR.

All other Presidents are crap it seems.

Oh, I dunno..seems like Jefferson and Washington get some love...LOL!

 

[bripat9643]

Then, Jefferson was wrong when he stated that the original 13 colonies were "free and independent" states?

"Perpetual" as used in the Articles of Confederation could not have meant never-ending without the ability to reform or dissolve. It only meant that the union did not have a sundown on it, nor a need to renew it. If "perpetual" meant what you say, the Constitution could not have been enacted. There is no such language in the Constitution.

Either way, none of this nonsense justifies the actions of Lincoln. None of it. Tyranny is tyranny, regardless of the "good intentions" behind such tyranny.

Scholars view the Civil War as the final determination between Jeffersonian and Hamiltonian philosophies.
Jefferson lost.

So might makes right, eh, douchebag?

Yes..fool. In history..and on the battlefield. The United States won..the Confederacy lost. In the end, that's all that matters. The rest is just self-justifying BS.

As a patriotic American, I'm OK with the outcome. If a modern analogue to the Civil War should arise, I know what side I'm on..the side my family has always been on..The United States.

The thinking of the statist...on display for all to see. They will gladly kill their fellow countrymen to keep a criminal state in place.

I wonder...without statists, would the ruling class exist? The statists are the brown shirts that keep the criminal ruling class in power.

***yawn***

Bakunin is long dead...his philosophy of opposing all hierarchies was, and remains, unworkable. Humans form hierarchies by nature..some lead..some wish to be led.
Better to control this--through rule of law...than to allow the unbridled excesses that 'Anarchy' would bring.
Implicit in every anarchist's argument, whether they know it or not, is the premise that a whole lot of people must die--for their 'free' and 'unfettered' world to work. Without the State..there is no infrastructure..no mechanism to feed the billions..no mechanism to administer justice, no matter how flawed..no body of law...no common currency...no social safety net....no mandate to educate....no continuity.

Anarchy is a process, not a place....and it will always lead back to what you term 'statism' .

So, enjoy your pipe dream...post your rhetoric..and know that you lost this argument before you even started.

So, the only choices are "unbridled anarchy" or might makes right? You're suffering from terminal servility, you realize.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Scholars view the Civil War as the final determination between Jeffersonian and Hamiltonian philosophies.
Jefferson lost.

So might makes right, eh, douchebag?

Yes..fool. In history..and on the battlefield. The United States won..the Confederacy lost. In the end, that's all that matters. The rest is just self-justifying BS.

As a patriotic American, I'm OK with the outcome. If a modern analogue to the Civil War should arise, I know what side I'm on..the side my family has always been on..The United States.

The thinking of the statist...on display for all to see. They will gladly kill their fellow countrymen to keep a criminal state in place.

I wonder...without statists, would the ruling class exist? The statists are the brown shirts that keep the criminal ruling class in power.

***yawn***

Bakunin is long dead...his philosophy of opposing all hierarchies was, and remains, unworkable. Humans form hierarchies by nature..some lead..some wish to be led.
Better to control this--through rule of law...than to allow the unbridled excesses that 'Anarchy' would bring.
Implicit in every anarchist's argument, whether they know it or not, is the premise that a whole lot of people must die--for their 'free' and 'unfettered' world to work. Without the State..there is no infrastructure..no mechanism to feed the billions..no mechanism to administer justice, no matter how flawed..no body of law...no common currency...no social safety net....no mandate to educate....no continuity.

Anarchy is a process, not a place....and it will always lead back to what you term 'statism' .

So, enjoy your pipe dream...post your rhetoric..and know that you lost this argument before you even started.

So, the only choices are "unbridled anarchy" or might makes right? You're suffering from terminal servility, you realize.

Fair enough..and you suffer from terminal naiveté, you realize. Not to mention a comprehension problem..as I never said that there were only two choices.

 

[gipper]

So might makes right, eh, douchebag?

Yes..fool. In history..and on the battlefield. The United States won..the Confederacy lost. In the end, that's all that matters. The rest is just self-justifying BS.

As a patriotic American, I'm OK with the outcome. If a modern analogue to the Civil War should arise, I know what side I'm on..the side my family has always been on..The United States.

The thinking of the statist...on display for all to see. They will gladly kill their fellow countrymen to keep a criminal state in place.

I wonder...without statists, would the ruling class exist? The statists are the brown shirts that keep the criminal ruling class in power.

***yawn***

Bakunin is long dead...his philosophy of opposing all hierarchies was, and remains, unworkable. Humans form hierarchies by nature..some lead..some wish to be led.
Better to control this--through rule of law...than to allow the unbridled excesses that 'Anarchy' would bring.
Implicit in every anarchist's argument, whether they know it or not, is the premise that a whole lot of people must die--for their 'free' and 'unfettered' world to work. Without the State..there is no infrastructure..no mechanism to feed the billions..no mechanism to administer justice, no matter how flawed..no body of law...no common currency...no social safety net....no mandate to educate....no continuity.

Anarchy is a process, not a place....and it will always lead back to what you term 'statism' .

So, enjoy your pipe dream...post your rhetoric..and know that you lost this argument before you even started.

So, the only choices are "unbridled anarchy" or might makes right? You're suffering from terminal servility, you realize.

Fair enough..and you suffer from terminal naiveté, you realize. Not to mention a comprehension problem..as I never said that there were only two choices.

Yeah it is naive to demand our government not go to war or kill fellow citizens for opposing the state.

The mind of the statist is amazing to witness.

 

[mascale]

Go back to the matter of shooting Comey, which maybe just seems like only yesterday. The 1860's relied on Pinkerton-level security services for White House security. Now White House security is federal employment. If the President gets shot., they shoot back. If the President starts shooting. . . .even his mouth off. . . .or his fingers start groping some device(?). . . .(Presidential normal behavior is different, now)!

Do they put themselves in some nature of line of fire?

Maybe they just try to find some lawyers from New York City, and do the Vatican's three-step process: "Ready. . . .Aim. . .Fire!" for any random act of violence you may think is Christian(?)!

Others do think that Liberation Theology finally found a toilet for itself.

Mohammed didn't even comment on Matthew 25:14-30, the Foreclosure Crisis--probably thinking it work itself out, like everything else(?).

The Electoral College is a holy thing itself. . .and equally likely, destined for a toilet bowl.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Mohammed of the Middle East--Maybe reliant on Great Spirit, "Seven Come Eleven," in our modern world!)

 

[bripat9643]

Yes..fool. In history..and on the battlefield. The United States won..the Confederacy lost. In the end, that's all that matters. The rest is just self-justifying BS.

As a patriotic American, I'm OK with the outcome. If a modern analogue to the Civil War should arise, I know what side I'm on..the side my family has always been on..The United States.

The thinking of the statist...on display for all to see. They will gladly kill their fellow countrymen to keep a criminal state in place.

I wonder...without statists, would the ruling class exist? The statists are the brown shirts that keep the criminal ruling class in power.

***yawn***

Bakunin is long dead...his philosophy of opposing all hierarchies was, and remains, unworkable. Humans form hierarchies by nature..some lead..some wish to be led.
Better to control this--through rule of law...than to allow the unbridled excesses that 'Anarchy' would bring.
Implicit in every anarchist's argument, whether they know it or not, is the premise that a whole lot of people must die--for their 'free' and 'unfettered' world to work. Without the State..there is no infrastructure..no mechanism to feed the billions..no mechanism to administer justice, no matter how flawed..no body of law...no common currency...no social safety net....no mandate to educate....no continuity.

Anarchy is a process, not a place....and it will always lead back to what you term 'statism' .

So, enjoy your pipe dream...post your rhetoric..and know that you lost this argument before you even started.

So, the only choices are "unbridled anarchy" or might makes right? You're suffering from terminal servility, you realize.

Fair enough..and you suffer from terminal naiveté, you realize. Not to mention a comprehension problem..as I never said that there were only two choices.

Yeah it is naive to demand our government not go to war or kill fellow citizens for opposing the state.

The mind of the statist is amazing to witness.

Everyone who got sent to the Gulag in the USSR under Stalin earned EvilEyeFleegle's contempt, apparently. They were "naive."

 

[there4eyeM]

"How come Lincoln got away with shutting down hundreds of newspapers and jailed journalists"
Because it was done to not let traitors get away with destroying their nation.
Otherwise, it wouldn't have been done.

 

[xband]

Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus. Lincoln would have put Perry Mason, Della Street and Paul Drake in jail with no bail.

 

[gipper]

"How come Lincoln got away with shutting down hundreds of newspapers and jailed journalists"
Because it was done to not let traitors get away with destroying their nation.
Otherwise, it wouldn't have been done.

You have it backwards. Dishonest Abe destroyed the nation. His philosophy was we will kill you and destroy your property to keep you. Most illogical and tyrannical.

 

[bripat9643]

"How come Lincoln got away with shutting down hundreds of newspapers and jailed journalists"
Because it was done to not let traitors get away with destroying their nation.
Otherwise, it wouldn't have been done.

According to the Constitution, they weren't traitors, you Stalinist douchebag.

The snowflake conception of a traitor: anyone who criticizes their dear leader.

 

[gipper]

Spooner for the win.

Slavery ended everywhere in the West, without bloodshed...except for you know who. Thanks to Dishonest Abe.

Slavery would have ended in the US peacefully too, if only Dishonest Abe hadn't existed.

That's true. Every other country ended racism without a so-called civil war.

There was actually a constitutional amendment introduced to abolish slavery prior to the warm but it didn't get support from Lincoln. Around 1860, I think it was. Nobody ever talks about that, though.

There's a really good book out there that I think many could benefit from reading. The Real Abraham Lincoln, by Tom DiLorenzo.

The Real Lincoln - Wikipedia

Nobody cares..Lincoln is dead..The Civil War is over. The South lost. It's now 2018.

And he has his massive memorial to be adored and worshipped by the masses in DC, along with his partner in crime FDR.

All other Presidents are crap it seems.

We should organize a Dishonest Abe protest and all urinate on the bastard’s Memorial.

 

[xband]

Lincoln would have put Pulitiser in jail with no bail.

Spooner for the win.

Slavery ended everywhere in the West, without bloodshed...except for you know who. Thanks to Dishonest Abe.

Slavery would have ended in the US peacefully too, if only Dishonest Abe hadn't existed.

That's true. Every other country ended racism without a so-called civil war.

There was actually a constitutional amendment introduced to abolish slavery prior to the warm but it didn't get support from Lincoln. Around 1860, I think it was. Nobody ever talks about that, though.

There's a really good book out there that I think many could benefit from reading. The Real Abraham Lincoln, by Tom DiLorenzo.

The Real Lincoln - Wikipedia

Nobody cares..Lincoln is dead..The Civil War is over. The South lost. It's now 2018.

And he has his massive memorial to be adored and worshipped by the masses in DC, along with his partner in crime FDR.

All other Presidents are crap it seems.

We should organize a Dishonest Abe protest and all urinate on the bastard’s Memorial.

Bring Dishonest Abe back and see if he takes the knee during the National Anthem.