Look, nobody has done more for incoherent nonsense than Donald Trump. And if you look - with the exception of Abraham Lincoln - possible exception, but the exception of Abraham Lincoln, nobody has done what he has done.

I love that eyebrow kick when he calls Abraham Lincoln a war criminal lol.

We need comedy shows at every rally.

I would rather debate Abraham Lincoln than Jon Stewart.

Warning, this is long. It's a general reply to bob, but really it's a rant about the reality of this country, origins, issue, and where we are headed... Like they say in Horace and Pete, at this point we just might deserve a president like Trump (especially because we are stupid enough to vote for HIM, and for so many Senators AND Congressmen like him or even far worse)...

Reply to bob at the top...


I hate to tell you, but "SHALL", according to the times in which the founding fathers wrote this IS indeed the utmost highest form of that period meaning that you "HAVE TO" do something.

Go ahead and let your own party change what grammar and vocabulary meant from that period--or simply not have enough brains to know what it really means (though most of us know by now their assistants have let them know what it means, they just refuse to believe reality and instead insert their own collective psychotic delusion).

Typically when it says SHALL (BTW, NOT doing that job should be getting them in HUGE amounts of trouble as well), they should be doing everything they can TO nominate a new judge into the open position in their next open session (not a session one year away, so Trump or Hillary has to do it).

If they want to complain about the nominee they CAN, just while they are under scrutiny to go up for the vote. But, they simply are NOT supposed to do nothing and furthermore say they WON'T do anything...

I'll have to look up what the penalty is for not doing this, but it could be a full "boot" from their job. Simply what has been referred to by Republicans in the past as Impeachment. But, then the Senate has to start that (I'm not sure if anyone else can; hence, this is why I said I'd try to see if there is anything else that can be done)

I believe they can also do it at the state level... BUT ALL of this requires for our government officials to do their fucking jobs! PLUS, the citizens that voted them in to give a shit!
----------


We REALLY, REALLY, do not deserve a country like this...it is BARELY alive and well. We are just a few presidential terms away (plus senators and congressmen) before we grind to a complete halt.

Then we can finally watch everything implode on CNN and FOX while REAL extremists take over and then the real fun starts. True extremists taking control with minimal bloodshed and shouting matches, civil war with outcomes that grant us either the NEO-United States (the U.S.A. V:2.0, which might be good), to the Neo-Confederacy (since that is what it all amounts to on the FAR right's spectrum). OR we simply just dissolve and become something entirely new.

Hey, bob did you know that your party used to be JUST like the Democrats of Lincoln's age. The Republican's were more like the Democrat's of our age. Weird right. THAT conservative party died out with Teddy Roosevelt's Bull Moose party; then all of the citizens decided that they simply liked the name "Republican" more (since they'd always voted for that name, right...it'd be weird to change it). That is where the Republican's became a FAR different party than they had been (though they still had a few more GREAT leaders before their schism drove them all, sadly, into madness ). The "Democrat's", they thought slavery was just peachy at first, and now they vote for gay-rights. NEITHER party remembers it's roots and the citizens of the United States have had their idiotic teachers and parents tell them all sorts of stories about how great either party WAS, but never telling them what they are like NOW. We all need to vote for our president, nowadays, without even LOOKING at their part's affiliation. It doesn't do any of us any good. Because none of them have ANY real lineage or links to the old presidents of these United States--they're full of shit.

Just remember, Republicans and their party were formed basically to try and abolish slavery--now they are more likely to put it back into action; a complete reversal of their direction, progressive and liberal!

Democrats tried to keep things the same as it was and to even expand slavery--now they want to allow marijuana to be legal, allow gays to have rights, and essentially pick up many progressive and liberal causes... They too have utterly reversed the direction they were at and taking during Abraham Lincoln's time. Conservative on many topics and wanting to expand the states' rights and abilities. Now they are the ones that would abolish slavery and even have Lincoln on their ticket if he ran...

Our parties in these United States are abysmal, a joke, a farce, and shouldn't even be used... The Founding Fathers would be dismayed over so many issues it wouldn't be even funny. They would more than likely throw OUT the Constitution and start a new draft, simply due to the amount of changes we've made in the WRONG direction and the fact that they weren't able to see the future far enough ahead to imagine gigantic empires made only of Business (with a mere handful of people, not hundreds, thousands, and many more like it was in their times) and how News would become so powerful it is essentially as powerful as the president of the United States--and if watched by enough people it is even FAR more powerful than him/her (like in Russia; The Internet being the ONE thing the Founding Fathers would pat our country on the back over and it's what can restore balance to the people who watch or only can gain information from these entities; a new type of "University" where anything can be shared; truth and facts obtained at every man's fingertips nearly instantly at any point on this planet; it IS the world's greatest WONDER ever made).

Lastly, they would absolutely abhor our parties and how they are used--internally and externally (how our politicians...how all the issues interconnect together; all politicians that receive outside money, they would likely want to have them all impeached, same with those that USE the media; they would HATE parties--but they know they'll always exist, you just have to get rid of the things that LET parties abuse we the people and also the government, and those things are: money and media...).


/length

Nah. He was being politic, just as Abraham Lincoln was, and just as George W was when he lied to the American people to get us to invade a sovereign nation. They all thought they were doing the right thing.

Two out of three ain't bad.

DOOOOD...he's lover of life and a philosopher's friend....Peter J's in another realm of his own fucking mind-Never said you were stupid, on the contrary-Yer smarter than the average bear here on VS, and twice as goddamn fun-School was a shit-storm of disinformation for ya?? Welcome to world of the real



There's no debate here abnout htis recent news for a single reason-Most fucks here could give a rats-ass about anything that isn't coated with the indoctroeducation they all had to suffer....


and Abraham Lincoln had a batshit insane wife just like his crazy fucin' asss

Freed the slaves MY ASS!

You know, we thought there was nothing left to say when 2 Live Crew rapped "Abraham Lincoln was a good ol man, jumped out the window with his dick in his hand -- said excuse me lady, this is my duty, so pull down your pants and gimme some booty."

Next thing you know he's fighting vampires and Lil Wayne intoxicates an Asian man to smash his cock through the roof of an apartment building.

I fail to see ANYTHING new, just higher production value.

And Just to be perfectly clear, secession predated the Lincoln administration! To ask, why didn't he do this or that is to ignore the situation he faced before he was even sworn in.

"On December 20, 1860, shortly after Abraham Lincoln's victory in the presidential election of 1860, South Carolina adopted an ordinance declaring its secession from the United States of America."

War to preserve the Union, not a Lincoln crusade to end slavery. Get it?

This is what happens when you get your history from political pundits like Thomas Wood Jr.

Try reading a real historical text on the period.

I recommend "Battle Cry of Freedom" by James McPherson.

Hey look, I guess I'm a free university!

you can make a non-tea party case for fiscal conservatism.

but you really can't make a huge case these days for social conservatism and that's where they really lose. You can't tell gays to go back into the closet, you can't tell minorities to be quiet, you can't tell women to accept lower pay and forfeit reproductive rights and health. You can't tell poor people to fuck off and die in an alley.

I don't know this guy, so I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt and suggest that he might even agree with all these things. This illustrates the problem with using vague binary terms like liberal and conservative to describe political views. Depending on the person "conservative" can mean completely different things.

This is the problem with the two party system. You can't sum up nuanced , complex political views into two parties. It's stupid.

Republicans have a huge perception problem they need to solve. Many people view them as old, white, racist, plutocrats. I know for a fact that they are not all this way. But the problem is, there are plenty of people who identify as Republican who DO fall completely into that view.

Fortunately, old people do have a habit of dying. so that solves part of the problem. But some people have to be dragged into the future kicking and screaming the entire way. If the Republican party wishes to survive, they need to decide pretty quick how they're going to deal with that.

I think there are too many people who identify as Republican for romantic reasons only. They're obsessed with the idea that Abraham Lincoln was a Republican even though the Republican party of then is completely different from the way it is now and it is due largely to racism. (google Southern Strategy)

As i've said before. All parties and lobbying need to be abolished. You can't stop people from assembling into voting blocs, but at the very least we can refuse to officially acknowledge them and do away with the RNC and DNC and remove money from our elections and force the person, not the party to run for office.

@Sniper007 Fine if you weren't being literal, but framing candy as a vice seems a bit of a big moral statement; I'm not a fan of classifying things that way.

Half the vices which the world condemns most loudly have seeds of good in them and require moderate use rather than total abstinence.
- Samuel Butler

He has all of the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire.
- Winston Churchill

It has been my experience that folks who have no vices have very few virtues.
-Abraham Lincoln

More of a misunderstanding then, it could have been worded better but I suspect you were in rant mode at the time, and there's plenty to rant about there.
I do agree that historical accuracy is always preferable to fabrication, as long as it serves the story and fits with the theme of the film, the presence of dragons would not have served the movie Lincoln in any way, and therefore, do not belong. The very title of Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter however pretty much tells us all we need to know about this film and it's treatment of history. So to me I guess, complaining about the historical accuracy of a film like 300 or Abraham Lincoln: Vampire hunter is a bit like going to a French film festival and then complaining that all the movies are in French.
I like history and learning more about history and having more historically accurate films would never be a bad thing in my book, but they do tend to be a harder sell.
Also there should be no shame in going to see Pacific Rim, write it off as a guilty pleasure if it helps.(sorta like coke and whores on my taxes

And before I watch this video, I predict that Abraham Lincoln will be mentioned.



...and I'm right.

The parties flipped positions in the 60s. see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

I know we've attempted to educate @bobknight33 on this on numerous occasions so I guess it's another case of willful ignorance. Anyone who continues to invoke the suggestion that the current Republican party is the same as it was in Lincoln's time cares not for history, or reality. Not only that, they're counting on the ignorance of the same in their constituents.

Stupid politician is stupid. Nothing new here.

They're stuck on this romantic idea that they are in the same party as Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln was a Republican, So they're a Republican. Lincoln was arguably the greatest president we ever had, so obviously if they're in the same party as Lincoln, they're great too...right? right?

Doesn't matter that if Lincoln were alive today, he'd align more with Democrats. He certainly couldn't win an election as a Republican today. Same thing with Reagan.

I know a guy at work just like him. It just simply doesn't seem to matter how many despicable things current Republicans do that he admits he disagrees with. He admits Romney, Palin, and Bachmann and etc are idiots. He's just been completely indoctrinated to believe that Republicans are always the good guys and Democrats are always the bad guys. You can just tell how frustrated he is because of how he can't reconcile the conflict.

He's a closet Democrat (or at the very least an independent), but he's just so completely stuck on the "Reps good, Dems bad" indoctrination. It was how he was raised. Too afraid of pissing off his parents and just never questioned authority.

It's truthiness at its worst. He's clinging to an idea that doesn't exist anymore.

The names are irrelevant. Good ideas always eventually rise to the top and bad ideas eventually fall. May take forever and have lots of setbacks on the way. Fast forward another couple hundred years and even if the names "Democrat" and "Republican" still exist as parties, you're an idiot if you think they'll mean exactly the same thing as they do now.

C'est magnifique!

Love these daguerrotypes of a young Abraham Lincoln and old Andrew Jackson:

"As Abraham Lincoln said - Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither."

It was actually Benjamin Franklin who originated this quote. Of course, who said it matters not to its relevance.