You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
US going to hell in a hand basket?
- Thread starter axeman
- Start date
Quote from max401:
Politics obviously must have a reference point in reality and Lincoln's views were simply reflective of the times rather than mere political rhetoric.
I don't disagree with your point, I fail to see why you are harping on it though.
My point, and yours are not mutually exclusive.
Quote from max401:
Perhaps and it would seem as anyone who disagrees with you must be.
No, not anyone.
Somehow this topic went from my pointing to Alphred's use of his quote, prompted by query from RS as to the reason for it--and Alphred's response, to some battle over who's point is more valid?
Strange, very strange.
But normal for you, right?
Find some meaningless point, try to make it some source of "I'm smarter than you" nonsense, and ramble on and on.
Both points have their place, both points are valid, yet why would someone try to argue that their point was the most important point?
How bizarre, that when someone is not even arguing with your point, that you deem it as some sort of personal attack.
What's really bizarre is someone who completely fails to debate their point, apparently. To wit, your point was:Quote from OPTIONAL777:
No, not anyone.
Somehow this topic went from my pointing to Alphred's use of his quote, prompted by query from RS as to the reason for it--and Alphred's response, to some battle over who's point is more valid?
Strange, very strange.
But normal for you, right?
Find some meaningless point, try to make it some source of "I'm smarter than you" nonsense, and ramble on and on.
Both points have their place, both points are valid, yet why would someone try to argue that their point was the most important point?
How bizarre, that when someone is not even arguing with your point, that you deem it as some sort of personal attack.
"We can go back to debates of the past and find all kind rhetoric that had more to do with getting elected than the actual administration of office."
I am stating that Lincoln's views were more tied to the reality of the times and not "more to do with getting elected." Except for a bunch of whining about someone supposedly "picking on you," you still have not defended your premise.
Quote from max401:
What's really bizarre is someone who completely fails to debate their point, apparently. To wit, your point was:
"We can go back to debates of the past and find all kind rhetoric that had more to do with getting elected than the actual administration of office."
I am stating that Lincoln's views were more tied to the reality of the times and not "more to do with getting elected." Except for a bunch of whining about someone supposedly "picking on you," you still have not defended your premise.
Like a fiddle, like a fiddle.
Why debate who's points were more valid? Your point about time frame is valid, my point about politicians saying what plays to the electorate is valid....or don't you believe politicians play to the audience?
I disagree that your point is more valid, but just a matter of opinion...not one subject to proof.
Anyone who has followed the lives of politicians have seen them swing like the wind. Reagan was a democrat at one time. That clown Michael Savage was a liberal. It happens all the time that people shift their positions, no big deal. Senator Byrd was a supporter of the KKK. Trent Lott in his youth...the list goes on and on....as it should. I would hope that people would be able to change their minds, and not become pit bull like in their thinking.
What matters is what they do while in office, and during Lincoln's tenure there was emancipation for the slaves and a war that in part helped to maintain that administration's decision.
What Lincoln said on the campaign trail is insignificant now.
Besides, can you prove that what Lincoln said was tied to the times and not political rhetoric?
No, you can't. Just a theory, as is my theory that politicians lie when it meets their needs. However, I can clearly show a pattern throughout the course of American politics where politicians lied to get what they wanted.
Honest Abe lie? Honest Abe was a politician looking to get into office to accomplish his goals.
Let it go, let it go.
What I'm disputing is that Lincoln was "playing to the audience" when he made the statement you questioned. And originally you seemed to even deny the attribution to Lincoln of that quote.Quote from OPTIONAL777:
Like a fiddle, like a fiddle.
my point about politicians saying what plays to the electorate is valid....or don't you believe politicians play to the audience?
Your massive Cut & Paste quite well proves that the generally known fact, "politicians play to the audience" is true. However, if that is your only point, you have simply ignored your own original diversion into this discussion, i.e. Lincoln's quote by the op and whether it was made in or out of context.
Quote from max401:
What I'm disputing is that Lincoln was "playing to the audience" when he made the statement you questioned. And originally you seemed to even deny the attribution to Lincoln of that quote.
Your massive Cut & Paste quite well proves that the generally known fact, "politicians play to the audience" is true. However, if that is your only point, you have simply ignored your own original diversion into this discussion, i.e. Lincoln's quote by the op and whether it was made in or out of context.
And your point is? That I questioned the source of the quote, you provided it, I thanked you, and then questioned the motivation for Lincoln saying what he did, and offered a theory as to why he said what he did and the context of him saying it...with some supporting anecdotal evidence.
He said it in a debate, which is sufficient enough reason for me to know that he was playing to the electorate to win votes in his battle with Douglas.
Also at that time, lacking the type of media coverage and levels of srutiny or even literacy, I have no doubt it was common for those debaters in that era to say one thing one day and completely reverse the next day.
Even so, to fully try to understand Lincoln's thinking, I would like to see the full transcript of that debate, all debates, personal writings, etc.
Then we might get some clue into his thinking at that time frame. And even if he was a racist pig, his actions speak to his mission once he got in office.
Did I dismiss your theory? No. So why do you continue to try to make a point that your theory is the correct theory?
I am not in disagreement with your theory, it is a possibility, only that it cannot be proven at this point what Lincoln's true motivation was, and that there may be other reasons for Lincoln's remarks at that particular time...i.e. the campaign process and the audience he was speaking to.
Did you major in college in one-upmanship? Or did you actually fail that class and need to try to redeem yourself on anonymous message boards.
Let it go.