[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
kroby wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
Perhaps you just like guys who think it’s okay to throw congressmen in jail, suspend habeus corpus, threaten to imprison supreme court justices who don’t agree with him, impose income taxes, and forge ahead with their plans when the supreme court tells them that what they are doing is unconstitutional and must stop.
mike
Congressmen going to jail is not an uncommon phenomenon.
Yes, but congressmen going to jail simply for disagreeing with the president is far less common. “In Maryland alone, Lincoln’s troops arrested and imprisoned without trial a mayor, a congressman, and thrity-one state legislators. Even Francis Scott Key’s grandson was not spared.”–Andrew Napolitano Constitution in Exile.
He also had an Ohio congressman deported for going against his income tax initiatives. A Maryland confederate sympathizer John Merryman was arrested, then appealed for a writ of Habeus Corpus to the Supreme Court. It was granted. Lincoln blew it off.
Suspension of habeus corpus seems to be happening now.
Umm, okay, and it’s wrong that they are doing it now. What’s your point?
Threatening justices? Threatening? At that particular time, the country was at war with itself. Times of war can call for extreme measures, especially if it’s your intentions of preserving the Union. By the way, what ever happened with their unconstitutional presumptions? Did any laws get repealed?
“Necessity is the plea of tyrants and slaves alike.”–William Pitt. Indeed. The country was at war with itself. But what people fail to see is that Lincoln preserved only the geographic Union while giving the coup de grace to the actual United States; you know, the one in the Constitution. He did this for what? He didn’t do it to end slavery. He did it to prevent a geographical breakup. The fact that the South would have come grovelling back in 15 years aside, how were Lincoln’s acts justified? The fact that Abe is given the love he has is a testament to the fact that history is written by the winners.
Furthermore, as for Lincoln being a tyrant… do I understand you properly that a duly elected official through a representative electorate is a tyrant? “In the exact sense, a tyrant is an individual who arrogates to himself the royal authority without having a right to it.” (Rousseau, “The Social Contract”) Your attempt to inflame notwithstanding, you use the term tyrant incorrectly. Neither was he a despot or dictator.
I’m not exactly a fan of Rousseau, and I do not use his definition of tyrant.
Oxford English Dictionary (because that’s the biggest dictionary in the house):
TYRANT–1.an oppressive or cruel ruler 2. a person exercising power arbitrarily or cruelly 3. an absolute ruler who seized power without the legal right
DICTATOR–1. a ruler with (often usurped) unrestricted authority 2. a person with supreme authority in any sphere. 3. a domineering person
DESPOT–1. an absolute ruler 2. tyrant or oppressor
Now how is does Lincoln not fit? Besides, would you dare not call Mussoulini or Hitler, or Ahmidenejad or Chavez any of these names since they were elected as well?
Keep your feelings out of your argument and you make a lot of sense. When your feelings get mixed in, you come off as a crackpot with a chip on your shoulder. That’s how you lose your credibility.
Indeed. If my feelings were uninvolved I suppose I would have no desire to argue. I will keep your advice in mind. I can see how you would think that, and hell, sometimes I feel that I sound crazy, but unfortunately that is going to happen when you stand up against someone who has been canonized.
mike
[/quote]
Mike,
You might want to steer clear of using Lincoln as an example in your quest. His excellence is beyond compare. Arguments made against him, instantly become invalid.
No American ever came farther and did more for his country.
The end justified the means.
Period.
Oh, it’s a toss-up between Andrew Jackson and T.R. as to who was the toughest.
Andrew Jackson was routinely too sick to sit a horse. Howevever, once he heard that his men were going to desert, he walked out in front of about 1000 of them.
He picked up his gun, pointed it at them, and said you aren’t going anywhere.
They backed down.
Or, as President, an assassin walked up, pulled out a gun, it misfired. Jackson grabbed the gun from the assassin and went after him before being restrained. He was going to pistol whip him. I think he was in his mid-60’s.
T.R. I don’t have to say much. Just pick up a biography. Read about his charge in Cuba, his fistfight out west, or sitting in an open boat with a cattle rustler for 1000 miles.
Or, you could discuss him going blind after fist fighting a champion in the White House.
You’ve already discussed, “It takes MORE THAN THAT TO KILL A BULL MOOSE!!!”
All of this after having asthma so severe he was told upon graduation at Harvard that he had a year to live.
Everyone else is second tier next to these guys.
JeffR