"Romainia Embraces Bush"

[DukeLeto]

Okay, Emprwrm, here ya go:

1. Lol, Lincoln did nothing of the sort. That stupid "Emancipation Proclamation" was directed SOLEY at the states that had seceeded from the union, but the President of the USA had no control of the CSA, now did he? An early example of Republicans messing in other country's affairs. ::)

And Bush is highly supportive of bringing in cheap foriegn labor. The whole Republican party is.

2. Like Bush would admit to soing that? Besides, CNN is just his little "yes-man" news station anyways.

3. Is, was, whatever. Was a drug addict, always will be a drug addict. Hence "addict".

4.I am top of my IB Advanced Placement classes, for your information. And I do live in the united states. Yes my parents are democrats, but that does not mean they condone what Clinton did, nor that they tell me what to think.

And I know darn well how our government works. The president does not have sole power, true. But the majority of our congress are conservative Republicans, and quite obviously they do what Bush asks them to! They pass any bills he asks for, turn over any power he wants!

I'll bet you vote straight party ticket, too. ::)

PS: "Leto" One "E". ::)

[Acriku]

Leto if you think for one second that the Emancipation Proclamation had nothing to do with slaves becoming free, then you are sadly mistaken, sir. It had a huge effect, and the CSA wasn't recognized as a country so how could it be messing around with other country's affairs? Also, Lincoln had his mind in politics, but it helped a great deal what he did.

[emprworm]

DukeLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEETO:

1. Lol, Lincoln did nothing of the sort. That stupid "Emancipation Proclamation" was directed SOLEY at the states that had seceeded from the union, but the President of the USA had no control of the CSA, now did he? An early example of Republicans messing in other country's affairs.

And Bush is highly supportive of bringing in cheap foriegn labor. The whole Republican party is.

2. Like Bush would admit to soing that? Besides, CNN is just his little "yes-man" news station anyways.

3. Is, was, whatever. Was a drug addict, always will be a drug addict. Hence "addict".

4.I am top of my IB Advanced Placement classes, for your information. And I do live in the united states. Yes my parents are democrats, but that does not mean they condone what Clinton did, nor that they tell me what to think.

And I know darn well how our government works. The president does not have sole power, true. But the majority of our congress are conservative Republicans, and quite obviously they do what Bush asks them to! They pass any bills he asks for, turn over any power he wants!

I'll bet you vote straight party ticket, too.

obviously you missed that day in class about "american history", obviously you do not even live in america. but let me fill you in: the south succeeded from the union...WHY? HU WHY?

uhhh, ask Edric. hes only 16 years old and lives in Romania. Ask Edric what it means to have free labor. The south had FREE SLAVE LABOR! ALL FREE! They didnt have to pay a bunch of lazy union dues to white workers. THEY LOVED all that free labor. Ask Edric if it makes sense that once a nation is dependent upon free labor that they do not want to give it up.

You are going to run your errant mouth around here saying that it had nothing to do with slavery? LOL. They SUCCEEDED BECAUSE THEY DEMANDED THAT SLAVERY BE MADE LEGAL AND ABRAHAM LINCOLN WOULD NOT COMPRIMISE AND MAKE SLAVERY LEGAL!! THE SOUTH DID NOT WANT TO GIVE UP FREE LABOR. THAT WAS ***THE*** ISSUE.

And LOOKUP THE WORD "EMANCIPATION". dont talk to me until you look it up in the dictionary.

Get over your crush on HIllary. She's ugly but I can tell you are a "clintonite" let me guess, you supported Billy Boy getting it done in the oval office eh?

lol

I'm not going to educate you on the civil war, so heres your homework:

lookup the history of the republican party.

look up the word "emancipation" in the dictionary

look up the reasons why the South succeeded from the union.

if you still are going to say that it had nothing to do with slavery...well, i have nothing to do with you. :P

[SurlyPIG]

Oh, and you misspelled "Romania".

You mean you havn't heard of the new Romainia? Legend depicts it as a land of limitless fruitfullness; where one can purchase quality letuce for ridiculasly low prices. Salad dressing included!

[Acriku]

No! The horror of imagining free croutons, it's just...it's just wrong!

[quoudam72]

look up the reasons why the South succeeded from the union.

The CSA didn't succeed they seceded and they lost. :P ;)

[emprworm]

lol. ya ok. seceded

[Anathema]

I may be mistaken, but the way I remember was that Lincoln initially did not want to outlaw slavery, because out of fear for a civil war. The southern states, however, thought he was going to do it anyway and seperated themselves from the union. Onlyt after the "yankees" defeated the confederates Lincon outlawed slavery.

[emprworm]

all you can really honestly know about lincoln is by his speeches and writings. thats all you have to go on. In every single speech he ever gave addressing slavery, he condemned it. it was already outlawed in the north and utterly loahted by the quakers. i do not think it is accurate to say that lincoln did not want to outlaw slavery. what source supports this?

[Anathema]

I don't remember where I got that from. I do know that by that time slavery was non existant in the yankee states. And I thought that the southern states feared Lincoln would outlaw slavery for them too.

[Dante]

"I have not, and have never been in favour of equality of white and black races. I am not, and have never been in favour of letting Negroes have government posts or marry white people."

Abraham Lincoln.

Correct, Lincoln would not have outlawed slavery without the war. As it was he saw an advantage in freeing the slaves as it was hindering his enemy.

I don't hate Bush for not doing enough. I hate him because what he does do is stupid (Ooh, yeah! Mention the Cold War in a peace discussion with Russia!), and the difference between him and a brick is about 2 IQ points.

[Dante]

I see that in the end, you want to be happy. Most people do. But what makes you happy?

For me, there is no greater feeling than compassion and love. Having those feelings towards someone, or everyone, the whole of Mankind, is what makes me happy.

Believe it or not, making people happy does actually make me happy. One of the primary reasons my opinions are what they are is because it's so damn impossible to please everybody. They are also so unappreciating. And when you can't make everybody happy, you might as well try and make yourself happy. I think what you say is extremely sensible, and great-hearted, but surely even you can't make everyone happy? I found that if people reject your attempts to please them, you (or I) just reject them back and focus on your own wellbeing. It's sad but true.

[Acriku]

Lincoln had his head in politics. He said no more slavery states will be made from now on to the northerners, and said you can keep the slave states you have now to the southeners.

[emprworm]

acriku i think what your missing here is that Lincoln, like all humans, evolved over time. during our journey through life, we evolve our conclusions. Lets say at age 30 Lincoln was a Muslim. Then at age 40 he converts to Hinduism and goes on to be one of the great Hindu leaders of his time preaching against Islam until his death at 80. Would it be fair to then 200 years later say "Lincoln was a staunt supporter of Islam"?

no, it would not. even though such a statement is true of lincoln at age 30, we see this was NOT who he really turned out to be.

now, Lincoln in his early years was more politically accepting of slavery, but in his later years, he was morally AND politically adamant against it

i refer you to a government collection of Lincoln's writings and speeches, along with this summary of his views on slavery:

Lincoln initially fought the war to preserve the Union, not to abolish slavery. However, by the summer of 1862 it was clear to Lincoln that the time had come for a change in his policy toward slavery. He realized that slavery would not abolish itself, and that the only way to end it would be for him to abolish it. Lincoln wrote a proclamation of emancipation and withheld pronouncement until the circumstances were favorable. After the Battle of Antietam, Lincoln issued a warning that all slaves behind Confederate lines would be declared free on January 1, 1863. This proved that the North was not fighting only for the Union, but also for human freedom. It also proved that Lincoln stood by his beliefs that slavery was wrong and should be abolished.

Even though Lincoln's views on the wrongs of slavery always stayed the same, he changed from being quiet and somewhat passive on the issue, to writing the Emancipation Proclamation, which freed all the slaves. Lincoln's views may have changed, in part, because of his increasing political status. Later, in his presidency, the war forced him to realize that the only way to eliminate slavery was to abolish it himself instead of letting it work its way to an end. Even though emancipation by government decree was not Lincoln's initial intention, the result was the same; because of him, slavery was forever eliminated in the United States.

[Acriku]

People sometimes do not change, and Lincoln being as old as he would be today, we will never know what he felt. It is all the politics that he put into effect, and the speeches that gripped the public's heart that made him what he was.

[emprworm]

that is unfair acriku. not fair to say. lincoln gave his life for his beliefs. the entire war for the south was on his moral stance on slavery. that you would even accuse him later in life of just playing politics is an abomination to me. there are only a few moral leaders this world has ever seen and he is one of them. it is not fair to retroactively go back in time and attempt to corrupt him with such poppycock.

"we will never know what he felt"

bogus. We know EXACTLy what he felt. Its plastered all over his writings and in his life.

his heartfelt speeches WERE just that- HEART FELT because he believed them with every fiber in his being. he did NOT make up a bnuch of crap to get popular. wanting to free all slaves was not a majority opinion due to extreme pernicious racism. you can downgrade him all you want, but this man is the greatest leader our nation has ever seen

[Acriku]

I don't see what you are getting so worked up about. What I said was the truth, it is accepted by history scholars everywhere, taught all over the United States in highschool, and you are just childishly getting defensive. I am not degrading Lincoln, I am simply saying that to have become president, he would have had to gain the a lot of votes. Talking about abolishing slavery would anger the south and he would lose those votes, so he played on the words. No more states will become slave states, but the states that are already slave states can stay that way. He was a great man, in many ways, but he couldn't have gotten the election with just the north.

[emprworm]

yes, acriku, i acknowledged that. he kept his views more private than public, but his political stance changed as his presidency went on (see my quote above) and his political stance moved to be more in line with his moral views. I have heard many people bash lincoln by trying to make it sound like he really didnt care that much about slaves and brought his moral views in line with his political agenda. This is blatantly false (im not accusing you of saying this). It is the oppositte. Over time, Lincolns political purpose became synchronous with his moral purpose. And THAT is a great quality of any president- not being afraid to take a political stance for your morals. Compare to clinton who changes his moral stances based upon popular opinion. Lincoln's political purposes were slow to be enforced like you said due to votes, but fortunately, eventually he came around and synchronized the 2.

[quoudam72]

Deja vu link ;)

[Dante]

History is naught but opinion. As my teacher says, "You can say anything if you can back it up with evidence." As both sides have done this, and neither has been convinced, perhaps it would be best to just let this lie?

[lowzeewee]

Yes, believe me, I know...

Fools. Spineless idiots. And that two-faced bastard Iliescu, who was a sworn communist before 1989, and now kisses Bush's ass!

His visit was broadcasted live by some 4 tv channels. Just like Clinton's visit 5 years ago.

When Bush said: "We are proud to welcome Romania into NATO, the great alliance of freedom." what he meant was:

"We are proud to assimilate Romania into NATO, the symbol of American Global Domination. You will now bow to us."

USA has an aRr0g4nT ASS

[Dude_Doc]

The word "New World Order" isn't familliar?

[Dante]

Alright just ignore me. See if I care. I went to all the trouble of finding that quote too...

[Elite47]

all you can really honestly know about lincoln is by his speeches and writings. thats all you have to go on. In every single speech he ever gave addressing slavery, he condemned it. it was already outlawed in the north and utterly loahted by the quakers. i do not think it is accurate to say that lincoln did not want to outlaw slavery. what source supports this?

No he didnt condemn slavery he was nuetral on this issue and didnt really care.

btw u know something cool... my aunt did a family tree research and oufnd one of my blood ancestors was related to abe lincoln somehow by marriage.