Ah, rats. I shall have to quality it when I get a power point.

In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
Sorry bro, but dupety-doo-da.

@Issykitty said: "This is probably what he does best and most often."

Haha... "Whatever you are, be a good one." -Abraham Lincoln

Mind you, Abraham Lincoln was a republican, but that is neither here nor there. To say that just because you don't want government to do something doesn't mean that you don't also share a human compulsion to do it as well...liberals like to draw this false dichotomy regularly. My church regularly is involved with the less fortune of the comunity, and there are all sorts of non-faith based organizations that do the same.

This is a non-argument. I could draw the same kind of false dichotomies about certain liberal arguments. That liberals want us to be attacked by terrorists and some nonsense. Talking points like this do no one any good, it is just self congratulatory and not helpful. To assume that one person has some moral high ground is at the heart of the problem on this issue. Moral problems are not best solved by government legislation, they are solved by people.

Forcing people to agree with your moral position is the essence of oppression.

@BicycleMan, if you can't tell the difference between Jainism and Christianity, I don't have much hope for you. My narrative about the flowering of antislavery through Christian philosophy is correct.


Uh, what? when did I express that I cant tell that difference? in fact, I mentioned Jainism partially to point out the difference, but also to show that the teachings of Christianity and "Christian philosophy" (theres an oxymoron to remember) is by no means the best, nor the first, nor is it exceptional in any significant respects. your narrative about the flowering of antislavery is precisely NOT correct at all. The end of slavery began with the enlightenment, which is marked by the advent of questioning Christianity and its tenets, it is of course true that both sides used the bible to argue their case, but the whole issue flowered out of the emancipation from religion and introduction of a secular, humanistic, non-tribal worldview. and non-religious laws. I am obviously not denying that most people, on both sides, were religious, but when the anti-slavery movement were led by people like Abraham Lincoln, a known religious skeptic, it is an insult to the victims of slavery to claim this was some kind of Christian movement:

It was the Declaration of Independence, rather than the Bible, that Lincoln most relied on in order to oppose any further territorial expansion of slavery. He saw the Declaration as more than a political document. To him, as well as to many abolitionists and other antislavery leaders, it was, foremost, a moral document that had forever determined valuable criteria in shaping the future of the nation Miller, William Lee (2002). Lincoln's Virtues: An Ethical Biography.

Bear in mind that I am not claiming that it was an entirely secular process, I am merely pointing out the ridiculous claim that it was a religious, and Christian, movement, when proponents of slavery frequently used their bibles to defend it.

Yeah, socialism isn't evil. It just doesn't work very well.

The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.
Winston Churchill

That some should be rich shows that others may become rich, and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise.
Abraham Lincoln


>> ^rougy:
If there were ever a time for populist outrage, it's now.
The cons will watch people starve, lose their jobs, and die of sicknesses that they cannot afford to pay a doctor to cure, and why?
Because "socialism" is "evil."
If there is one thing wrong with the democrats and the left in general, it's that we're not mad enough, and nobody is doing anything about it.
We'll never make any progress as long as we kowtow to rightwing expectations and play by their rules.

"We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others, the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men's labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same name - liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatible names - liberty and tyranny."

-- The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume VII, "Address at Sanitary Fair, Baltimore, Maryland" (April 18, 1864), p. 301-302.

HAHAHA!

Not the one you were referring too, but funny nontheless.

abraham lincoln
A sexual act where you do your girl doggy style in the back of a theater balcony, then after you shoot your load all over her ass and back, yell SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS! then jump off the balcony and escape.

republicans! unite! to honor everyones favorite republican, Abe Lincoln.
today we shall show our solidarity by giving our friends and neighbors abraham lincoln beards. block parties will spring up all over the nation, conservative men will wear their homegrown lincolns with pride while the women help them cook up some hot american chili dogs of freedom. show that facsist obama what a real illinois statesmen looks like and.. eats like! om nom nom


(im assuming everyone knows what an abe lincoln and chili dog is, id be glad to make a sifttalk post about it )

You have been awarded 1 Power Point for fixing the embed code for Dead Pool video Abraham Lincoln Hires Ninjas (Drillbit Taylor). Thank you for helping maintain VideoSift's reliability.

Context: http://books.videosift.com/talk/The-Man-The-Myth-The-King-The-Legend-of-Kronos

In reply to this comment by Edeot:
No, but this should be.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
You are pretty nosey for a dead president. So maybe I like to look at pictures of Abraham Lincoln from time to time. It's not a crime.

No, but this should be.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
You are pretty nosey for a dead president. So maybe I like to look at pictures of Abraham Lincoln from time to time. It's not a crime.

You are pretty nosey for a dead president. So maybe I like to look at pictures of Abraham Lincoln from time to time. It's not a crime.

In reply to this comment by Edeot:
You think you got enough Lincoln pics on your Photobucket album?

Tags for this video have been changed from 'abraham lincoln, animatronic, disneyland, disney, malfunction' to 'abraham lincoln, animatronic, disney world, disney, malfunction' - edited by blankfist

Whoa! Slow down. I never said I hate Democrats. They make up the large majority of my friends. Let's take this slowly so not to confuse you any further.

>> ^NetRunner:
I'm well aware of where the logo comes from...so what? If Democrats decide to start using Obama's logo from now on, does that mean Obama founded the Democratic party?

Huh? That has no relevance. The party started with Jackson. He even laughingly chose the mascot based on a derision toward his name: Andrew Jackass. I've given you sources citing this. The party was started with him. It won't matter if the mascot or logo or whatever changes after Jackson or not, the party started with him.

And, I did read your links. Excuse me if I don't take the one from democrats.org seriously. But this one is accurate: http://www.answers.com/topic/democratic-party

I agree it was a split of the party, because after this point there weren't any other Democratic Republicans that I've read about after Jackson. Andrew Jackson also believed himself to be a Jeffersonian Democrat (though arguably in practice I'd say he wasn't, but that's another discussion altogether). But, it wasn't as if the party was handed over to Jackson. It was split, which means the party was effectively dissolved, not transformed.

The Republicans can lay claim just as easily to the Democratic Republican Party, because Adams and Clay created the National Republican Party (which became the Whigs which was further split into the Republican Party). It's lunacy. None of those two parties have anything to do (at least not in practice) with the Jeffersonian Principles of the original party.

But, by your logic, we could say Thomas Jefferson founded the Democrat Party, the Republican Party, the Whigs Party, the National Republican Party, Free Soil Party and the Know Nothing Party. Hell, you could argue the Democratic Republican Party was molded out of the Anti-Administration Party, so therefore James Madison was the founder of all parties.

The National Republican Party (which ultimately morphed into The Republican Party) is said to be a combination of The Democratic Republican Party and the Federalist Party (which was preceded by the Pro-Administration Party), so does that mean both Thomas Jefferson and George Washington founded that party?! Wow!

When you create a new party, it has a founder at the moment it is created. That founder typically is the politician who personifies it, such as Andrew Jackson for the Democratic Party, Abraham Lincoln for the Republican Party and Thomas Jefferson & James Madison for the Democratic Republican Party.

"[Obama is] following in the same path of Abraham Lincoln; he will get his."

oh my, can you just imagine?

"The Assassination of Barack Obama, one of the last major events in an American Civil Society, took place on Good Friday, April 14, 2009, when President Barack Obama was shot while attending a performance of 'Our Kenyan Cousin' at the Apollo Theater with his wife and two guests, 2Pac and Biggy Smalls. Obama's assassin, former child actor and Neo-Con sympathizer, Gary Coleman, after leaping to the stage from the President's box was heard to shout, "What you talkin' 'bout Willis?"