Bush Supporters Misquoting Lincoln
Bush supporters falsely quote Lincoln as advocating arresting, exiling or hanging members of Congress who damage military morale in wartime.
Supporters of President Bush and the war in Iraq often quote Abraham Lincoln as saying members of Congress who act to damage military morale in wartime "are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled or hanged."
Republican candidate Diana Irey used the "quote" recently in her campaign against Democratic Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania, and it has appeared thousands of times on the Internet, in newspaper articles and letters to the editor, and in Republican speeches.
But Lincoln never said that. The conservative author who touched off the misquotation frenzy, J. Michael Waller, concedes that the words are his, not Lincoln's. Waller says he never meant to put quote marks around them, and blames an editor for the mistake and the failure to correct it. We also note other serious historical errors in the Waller article containing the bogus quote.
Read more@ FactCheck.org.
13 comments:
A much greater misunderstanding is the OTBL perception of the Stars and Bars.
CATO:
Is there a country on earth where you'd feel the balance of liberty is sufficient compared to that of the general welfare? I'd suggest India, where the squalor on the streets has the same stench as the OTBL blog.
Not the America I want to see!!!!!!!!!
CATO:
So every form of government on earth is evil, unless it is perfect by your standards? All Western civilization is evil?
Yes, it is a valid criticism of your position, because in REALITY your ideas of self-government have never even been attempted and when "self-government" erupts spontaneously, it always in the form of chaos and mayhem, e.g. riots, civil war and unrest.
The lesser of many evils may not be perfect good, but it is less evil.
There are more colors in the political spectrum than black and white.
Andy & Cato:
Andy, you are confused about what Cato is arguing for. He knows there are many colors in the political spectrum. However, he only cares to argue for one color. He knows that his form of governmental color will never happen, but that shouldn't stop him from arguing for that color.
In reality, Andy is arguing for a specific color of government. I wonder if Cato believes in evolution? It's obvious that he doesn't believe in governmental evolution, when it comes to the US. Once the Constitution's ink was dry, we had all we need. Cato repeatedly alludes to this. Of course, he keeps telling us about federal taxation being illegal -- even though Article XVI of the Constitution states: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
That's what is confusing about Cato's arguments. He refuses to accept Article XVI. Andy seems to have understood the idea of dealing with the reality of an example citizenry and a changing world. Cato, on the other hand, prefers to hibernate in a world that probably stopped evolving on July 2, 1909 when Article XVI was ratified.
Point of info to Roadkill:
Technically Article XVI, etc are articles of the Amendments to the Constitution. That is what my source titled the Constitution of the United States calls them. The commonly accepted phrase would be "the 16th Amendment."
---
Also Roadkill, wouldn't you say that amendments to the Constitution have tended to expand rather than restrict individuals rights?
Similarly, the Marriage Amendment to the Wisconsin state Constitution this November is an attempt to restrict individual rights and reign in civil liberties.
I'm not sure that I've read much on this blog where the participants are arguing in favor of curtailing civil liberties. Unless you want to argue that collecting federal taxes is a violation of your civil liberties.
Roadkill:
Concerning: "Thoughtful and reasoned expansions of civil rights will prevail in the marketplace of ideas, and will become law through the democratic process." I think today's "marketplace of ideas" doesn't seem to be more like a mosh pit of polarized mudslinging. I also believe that type of forum hasn't really changed much through the years. But then again, "democracy" is really a legal lynch mob.
This brings me to your statement:
"I believe it should be done democratically, through the consent of the governed, and not by some group of elites who believe they know best what is good for society." Here I would assume you don't want the court interpreting the laws passed by the legislative branches. That to me would seem to been the job of the court system. It's the checks and balance to make sure the laws passed and signed into law mesh with the Constitutional foundation that our system of government is built on. I don't know the detail history of the legislative/judicial relation in Hitler's Germany. It would seem that those who oppose judicial review and want the people to speak through votes via amendments are arguing in favor of Hitler's model -- if you block the judicial review option. I believe constitutional amendments can be subject to judicial review.
Concerning legalized prostitution, it is legal in Nevada. I would prefer legalised prostitution. It would take the victim out of a victimless crime. It's a business transaction between two consenting adults. I seen nothing wrong with polygamy, if it's among consenting adults. If no body's forced into this type of relationship, what would be the harm. It seems to work in Middle Eastern cultures and has worked for Mormons.
Cato:
I guess I meant you said the federal income tax was illegal -- not unconstitutional.
Cato:
Maybe you said is was immoral.
So Cato;
You have said that you don't have a faith in God (I apologize if I'm misquoting you). My presumption is that the belief in God identifies ethic, and moral guidance. For me that is Christianity. What motivates boundaries for morality when one does not believe in a God??
CATO:
Nonsense!
If there is no Supreme Being then everyone's "reasoning" has equal authority. Whether you care to admit it or not our laws in this country are based on a Judeo-Christian ethic.
Cato;
Actually this point gets to the guts of the discussion. Based on your interpretation, Hitler is capable of reason, and given that premise, there was no wrong committed by his regime (had he remained the toughest guy on the block).
Without God, morals have no real authority except those determined by anyone or group with a big enough hammer to force a given set of rules or lack of rules (survival of the fittest). God changes that; God determines morality.
Can you reason with randomness, or, ordlyness? What you're proposing insinuates orderliness from randomness via logic; when logic is derived from, and implies orderliness.
CATO:
Is this sophistry because it doesn't agree with your logic? You've indicated that you have reasoned that abortion is immoral yet your Randist brethren have reasoned that "Abortion is Pro-Life, anti abortion is anti-life".
http://capitalism.org/faq/abortion.htm
So who's "reason" is superior?, yours or your Randist brethren?
Although Norseman has unwittingly incurred Goodwin law, he is essentially correct and is in effect saying if there is no God "Might makes right".
Post a Comment