Interesting Lincoln quote

oligarch wrote:

Cyprian Uljanow wrote:

Thats intrigues me - considering Republicans claim they descend form Lincoln's Ideology, and thats a clear Right ( The republicans) bordering with fascism.

Republican claims that they follow Lincoln's ideology are all lies. Regan's ideology and Lincoln's are a world away.

you don't say

After reconstruction the parties principles flipped compleatly. Democrats then were like the republicans now.

Diogritor wrote:

After reconstruction the parties principles flipped compleatly. Democrats then were like the republicans now.

Not really, it was more during the late 1960's early 1970's when the parties employed their "Southern Strategies" when the republicans took the segregationist minority faction of the Democratic Party who had opposed who had opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in order to take control of the South. The Democratic Party then took all the post-segregationist Southern conservatives from the Republican who left as the the Republicans adopted anti-civil rights positions, i.e. Carter, Clinton, etc.

Huh... Id want to sound smart here but I have no clue about US politics realities, I do know that theres loads of reports of more and more republicans turning out gay " Were red and were gay"

oligarch wrote:

Diogritor wrote:

After reconstruction the parties principles flipped compleatly. Democrats then were like the republicans now.

Not really, it was more during the late 1960's early 1970's when the parties employed their "Southern Strategies" when the republicans took the segregationist minority faction of the Democratic Party who had opposed who had opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in order to take control of the South. The Democratic Party then took all the post-segregationist Southern conservatives from the Republican who left as the the Republicans adopted anti-civil rights positions, i.e. Carter, Clinton, etc.

umm isn't clinton a democrat?

mattabesta wrote:

oligarch wrote:

Diogritor wrote:

After reconstruction the parties principles flipped compleatly. Democrats then were like the republicans now.

Not really, it was more during the late 1960's early 1970's when the parties employed their "Southern Strategies" when the republicans took the segregationist minority faction of the Democratic Party who had opposed who had opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in order to take control of the South. The Democratic Party then took all the post-segregationist Southern conservatives from the Republican who left as the the Republicans adopted anti-civil rights positions, i.e. Carter, Clinton, etc.

umm isn't clinton a democrat?

Yes, Carter too. I meant post-segregation conservatives(Clinton, Carter, etc.) joined the Democratic Party while the Republican Party adopted segregationist positions thus ending the progressive era.

oligarch wrote:

mattabesta wrote:

oligarch wrote:

Diogritor wrote:

After reconstruction the parties principles flipped compleatly. Democrats then were like the republicans now.

Not really, it was more during the late 1960's early 1970's when the parties employed their "Southern Strategies" when the republicans took the segregationist minority faction of the Democratic Party who had opposed who had opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in order to take control of the South. The Democratic Party then took all the post-segregationist Southern conservatives from the Republican who left as the the Republicans adopted anti-civil rights positions, i.e. Carter, Clinton, etc.

umm isn't clinton a democrat?

Yes, Carter too. I meant post-segregation conservatives(Clinton, Carter, etc.) joined the democratic party while the Republican Party adopted segregationist positions thus edning the progressive era.

oh ok.
I'm going on a long trip so I won't be answering posts for the nex 12 hours or so.

All pro-capitalist parties are liberal whether they are fascists or social democrats.

Pannekoek wrote:

All pro-capitalist parties are liberal whether they are fascists or social democrats.

That is besides the point, he was just merely describing a situation.

But yeah the post war reconstruction was aimed to exploit the south and its resources, we are still lacking in the south that the rest of America.

Quote :

But yeah the post war reconstruction was aimed to exploit the south

Well, they did practice slavery.

Pannekoek wrote:

Quote :

But yeah the post war reconstruction was aimed to exploit the south

Well, they did practice slavery.

so they should have worked to better the south, instead they kept all te oppresed blacks in the south and cornered them into oppressive ghettos

That's true.

Renegade_Kautsky wrote:

Here a quote taken from Abraham Lincoln's address to US congress in 1861

"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."

Does this surprise anyone? Or furthermore change their view of Lincoln?

as far as i am concerned he is just saying they deserve higher wages

and that isn't enough

Ownership of means of production is enough. Pie is not enough. Down with pie! Up with mop!

My question is, why would this surprise anyone? Sometimes I feel like the only one in the world who realises that there is no black or white. Even Hitler had some good ideas, and even some redeeming qualities. Just because someone sits on, let's say, the right wing, does not mean 100% of their views will be as such.

mattabesta wrote:

wwll if politics are a circel then facism is close to communism.

But it's not, so it isn't.

I'm sorry, but this quote just makes me less fond of Lincoln. I don't play down what he did for a whole race of people (or what he began to do), but if he believes this way, and is indeed a socialist, why didn't he do more? He may not have power, so to speak, as president, but surely he had influence and could've done much more to further our cause.

Coulda, woulda, shoulda. I could have done a lot in my life. I didn't. Why didn't he? Because he didn't. A lot of people don't do more. You could do more, but you don't. Why not?

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Coulda, woulda, shoulda. I could have done a lot in my life. I didn't. Why didn't he? Because he didn't. A lot of people don't do more. You could do more, but you don't. Why not?

What the hell are you talking about? If he was really a socialist, he would've done more for socialism (as it stands, he did little to nothing). Ya, i could do more, but i'm trying to balance political activity and a social life. "Because he didn't" is not a valid excuse.

But he wasn't a sosh. he was a sosh. LOBSTER!

Lobster? Wha?

Have you ever heard the song rock lobster? highly recommended. "but it wasn't a rock it was a rock.... LOBSTER!"

Pannekoek wrote:

But he wasn't a sosh. he was a sosh. LOBSTER!

is that spam?

What is it to you?

Right... anyway. Yes, it is a valid excuse. He didn't. I mean, one can't ask him, at least I hope not, (zombie Lincoln! Run!) so what other excuse is there? It's an excuse I myself use quite often. There's no underlying reason for me doing or not doing something. It's just because. Maybe he planned on it, and never got around to it. Perhaps he was happy with things the way they were. Or perhaps he looked at it all from a philisophical standpoint, as I do.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Right... anyway. Yes, it is a valid excuse.

No, it's not; wow, you make debating you very easy.

Quote :

so what other excuse is there?

... I don't know, cos he's not a socialist; why don't you ask Lincoln? Cos i'm sure he wouldn't say: "Because"

Quote :

Maybe he planned on it, and never got around to it. Perhaps he was happy with things the way they were. Or perhaps he looked at it all from a philisophical standpoint, as I do.

Then he wasn't a socialist, and you're continuing this debate for no purpose and wasting both our time.