Comments on: Conservatives Vs. Lincoln

By: merlallen

merlallen — Tue, 06 Mar 2007 12:42:53 +0000

He is also the ONLY Republican’t President to win a major war.

By: Duros62

Duros62 — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 20:25:45 +0000

Oh yeah, and Martin Luther King was a Republican.

That kills me every time.

By: Duros62

Duros62 — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 20:25:01 +0000

I’m telling ya, the right wing machine only has room in its head for one Lincoln comparison at a time. They’ve already (hilariously wrongly) compared Bush to Lincoln, so they can’t use that one anymore this cycle.

By: Nimrod Gently

Nimrod Gently — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 12:58:37 +0000

Oh, so your ridiculous supposition is all the other guy’s fault.

By: Mike

Mike — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 04:43:01 +0000

Bottom line: Lincoln sent 600,000 soldiers to their deaths fighting for a cause he believed in.

He is God.

Bush has sent less than 4,000 soldiers to their deaths fighting for a cause he believes in.

He is Satan.

Yes, things have changed a lot during the past 150 years.

By: Jay

Jay — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 01:51:29 +0000

You missed my point, well done. I imagine that’s what you were aiming for.

No, I didn’t miss your point at all. You were mocking the notion that the issue is so simple when in fact that’s how the left breaks it down.

One question: do you really think that the situation in America now is at all similar or analogous to the situation during the fucking Civil bloody War?

What difference does it make? If the issue of habeas corpus so freaking black and white as those on the left believe it to be (at least that’s how they behave with regard to Guantanamo), then it doesn’t matter what time period we’re in or what we’re dealing with.

By: Nimrod Gently

Nimrod Gently — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 00:30:02 +0000

One question: do you really think that the situation in America now is at all similar or analogous to the situation during the fucking Civil bloody War?

Is the answer “of course you don’t but there are points to be scored so let’s pretend”?

By: Nimrod Gently

Nimrod Gently — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 00:28:44 +0000

You missed my point, well done. I imagine that’s what you were aiming for.

By: Jay

Jay — Sun, 04 Mar 2007 23:40:28 +0000

Wow, I sure am glad the issue is so incredibly fucking simple! OH WAI

Oh really? Well look in the mirror kid. And at the rest of the left-wingers around here.

Right here is a post by Oliver approvingly linking to a screed by Olbermann where he is bitching about habeas corpus.

So apparently it was ok when Lincoln did it, but not when Bush refused Guantanamo detainees the same rights as an everyday crook.

The conservative viewpoint (not the Republican partisan one which is different) on it has not changed. It was wrong now and it was wrong then.

Once again, Oliver is cherry picking when something some important is wrong or right.

By: Nimrod Gently

Nimrod Gently — Sun, 04 Mar 2007 23:03:27 +0000

So what is it Oliver? Is it ok to suspend habeas corpus or not? You cannot have it both ways.

Wow, I sure am glad the issue is so incredibly fucking simple! OH WAI

By: ted

ted — Sun, 04 Mar 2007 22:17:06 +0000

The GOP should be proud that the republicans won the Republican War of Northern Aggression. Today’s GOP is the “party of Lincoln” as Bush calls it.

By: Jay

Jay — Sun, 04 Mar 2007 18:07:07 +0000

So Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and some conservatives are critical of that.

Yet the left (including you Oliver) have shrieked like little girls over Guantanamo. Many of those same conservatives that criticize Lincoln over what he did, were the same ones criticizing the administration over Guantanamo.

So what is it Oliver? Is it ok to suspend habeas corpus or not? You cannot have it both ways.

By: Blue in VA

Blue in VA — Sun, 04 Mar 2007 14:25:25 +0000

In most of the south (I am in in Richmond, VA - the capitol of the confederacy) Lincoln is not revered. They believe that the South was right and still drone on about “The War of Northern Aggression”. Also, the majority believe that Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs to church and that Ann Coulter is an intellectual because she writes books. On the positive side, the weather is nice.

By: Henry

Henry — Sun, 04 Mar 2007 06:34:05 +0000

I smell some unreconstructed secessionists/segregationists/supremacists speaking. Who else has a problem with “militarily challeng[ing] the South’s belief in its right to secede”? And is that–”the South’s belief”–the most deceitful bit of doubletalk you’ve heard today? Do they mean that arming militias, declaring secession and firing on federal facilities were merely talking points?

We know that the modern Republican Party is now run by Dixiecrats and their evangelical allies from outside the South–no news there. But to hear that sort of supremacist talk at a political event–even if they thought they would only be read by subscribers to the Washington Times–is still bracing. We are dealing with some unmitigated evil here.

By: Rheinhard

Rheinhard — Sun, 04 Mar 2007 05:45:58 +0000

Yeah, well I can see why they end up with scenes like this at the Conservative Policy Action Conference! Bwahahahahaha!

By: Diamond LeGrande

Diamond LeGrande — Sun, 04 Mar 2007 04:28:19 +0000

Honestly, I can see this criticism of Lincoln. The guy put his opponent in jail to win an election in 1864.

Same story with Giuliani. However, these guys refused to say anything when Giuliani was in office, and belittled all the liberals who objected. Come to think of it, the same thing happened when the Reagan administration embraced Saddam Hussein. Many years after the fact, after all the damage was done, they say something.