You made the slur, you prove it. Slur....wtf?

You are the one casting aspersions, so back it up.

Lincoln was a republican. The rest are old school moderate democrats. Yes, you're correct, my apologies. He was a moderate republican,

Lincoln moderate? geez Lucas... he suspended habeas corpus, he got us involved in the bloodiest civil war ever. He tore the country in two much worse than any other President.

The rest are old school moderate democrats.

That's me! I'm an old-school Democrat. Pick me to be one of those.

I don't identify with the current Democratic party - I am an FDR, Truman, JFK-style Democrat.

And besides, you know you love me anyway.

(Citizen)San ChoninoDecember 5, 2006 12:32:13

That's me! I'm an old-school Democrat.

Yes I have noticed the sane democrats have little in common with the loons of the party.

you, shades, deference, kingbee to name a few

he suspended habeas corpus,

As did Bush, see following:

The November 13, 2001 Presidential Military Order gave the President of the United States the power to detain non-citizens suspected of connection to terrorists or terrorism as an enemy combatant. As such, that person could be held indefinitely, without charges being filed against him or her, without a court hearing, and without entitlement to a legal consultant. Many legal and constitutional scholars contended that these provisions were in direct opposition to habeas corpus, and the United States Bill of Rights. The case of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld re-confirmed the right of U.S. citizens to habeas corpus even when declared an enemy combatant. (While the case contained many opinions, eight of the nine justices affirmed the basic principle that habeas corpus of a citizen could not be revoked.) The issue of aliens has been more complicated. In the case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, argued before the United States Supreme Court in March 2006, Salim Ahmed Hamdan petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, challenging the lawfulness of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's plan to try him for alleged war crimes before a military commission convened under special orders issued by the President of the United States, rather than before a court-martial convened under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. On June 29, 2006, in a 5-3 ruling the Supreme Court of the United States rejected Congress's attempts to strip the court of jurisdiction over habeas corpus appeals by detainees at Guantánamo Bay, although Congress had previously passed the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA), which took effect on December 30, 2005: "Except as provided in section 1005 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba." §1005(e)(1), 119 Stat. 2742. Section 1005 does provide, however, a limited habeas corpus process: "The jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on any claims with respect to an alien under this paragraph shall be limited to the consideration of whether the status determination ... was consistent with the standards and procedures specified by the Secretary of Defense for Combatant Status Review Tribunals (including the requirement that the conclusion of the Tribunal be supported by a preponderance of the evidence and allowing a rebuttable presumption in favor of the Government's evidence), and to the extent the Constitution and laws of the United States are applicable, whether the use of such standards and procedures to make the determination is consistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States." §1005(e)(2), 119 Stat. 2742. On 29 September 2006, the U.S. House and Senate approved the Military Commissions Act of 2006, a bill which would suspend habeas corpus for any alien (noncitizen) determined to be an "unlawful enemy combatant engaged in hostilities or having supported hostilities against the United States"[2][3] by a vote of 65-34. (This was the result on the bill to approve the military trials for detainees; an amendment to remove the suspension of habeas corpus failed 48-51.[4]) President Bush signed the Military Commissons Act of 2006 into law on October 17, 2006. With the MCA's passage, the law altered the language from "alien detained ... at Guantanamo Bay": "Except as provided in section 1005 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination." §1005(e)(1), 119 Stat. 2742. Under the MCA, the law restricts habeas appeals for only those aliens detained as enemy combatants, or awaiting such determination. Left unchanged is the provision that, after such determination is made, it is subject to appeal in U.S. Court, including a review of whether the evidence warrants the determination. If the status is upheld, then their imprisonment is deemed lawful; if not, then the government can change the prisoner's status to something else, at which point the habeas restrictions no longer apply. Wikinews has news related to: President Bush signed into law the Military Commissions Act of 2006There is, however, no legal time limit which would force the government to provide a Combatant Status Review Tribunal hearing. Prisoners are legally prohibited from petitioning any court for any reason before a CSRT hearing takes place.

WWW Link">Link

he got us involved in the bloodiest civil war ever.

He got us involved for several reasons:

1) To keep the Union together.

2) To fight slavery (for whatever reason).

3) To keep the south from hurting the north economically.

etc...


However, he also tried several times to keep us out, to prevent the civil war

Including almost signing the Corwin Amendment.

[link="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corwin_amendment"]WWW Link

he suspended habeas corpus,

Abolishment of slavery Founding of USA (They 'were' liberals) Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790) ~ Take a guess... Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) ~ Wrote the US Declaration of Independence Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1882–1945) ~ Led america through WW2, CCC, New deal, etc... Harry Truman (1884-1972) - Same as above John F. Kennedy (1917-1963) ~ Stopped the missled crisis Martin Luther King, Jr. (1929-1968) ~ Hmm, take a guess.

Your ignorance knows no bounds.

The founding fathers, today would be considered conservatives. The people who abolished slavery were overwhelmingly "right wingers" by today's standards. 

The abolishment movement is essentially the same pepole that today march in pro-life rallies.

Lucas, before you utter more ignorance on history, try reading the federalist papers or hell just read a biography on John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Hamilton (or Washington) and then try to say that their views are more in line with yours than they are with people like me. 

 

Individual rights Individualism Liberal democracy Liberal neutrality Negative & positive Liberty Free market Mixed economy Open society

You're essentially wrong on all of these things. Simply declaring a list of things you wish to take credit for doesn't make them true.

Individual rights? Liberals have been at the forefront of collectivism.  Liberals are the ones who try to pass laws on gun ownership -- the ultimate individual right.  Liberals are the ones who favor putting limits to how much individuals can contribute to political compaigns.  Liberals are the ones that push "campaign finance reform" that prevents someone like me from taking out ads in newspapers supporting a candidate if it's "too close" to an election.

Define "liberal democracy"

Define "liberal neutrality"

Define "negative and positive" liberty

The free market? Are you high? Liberals are the ones who try to push things like "A living wage". The more liberal someone is, the more likely you're going to hear talk about how there should be a maximum income people are allowed to get.  Liberals are the ones who favor regulation.

Mixed economy. In what way?

Open Society? In what way?  Liberals are the ones who are slowly turning our universitieis into fascist enclaves.  Liberals brought us "political correctness".  Liberals are the ones who want to pass "hate speech" laws and "hate crime" laws. 

The more liberal the country, the fewer rights individuals have.  You can be fined and jailed in liberal countries in Europe and Canada for saying the wrong thing if they're deemed "hate speech".

Do you understand how to debate at all, Lucas? You make claims but do nothing to back them up.  And often they're completely at odds with history.

As did Bush, see following:

No, Bush did not. Enemy combatants are not afforded the protection of the Constitution, Indeed, to subject enemy fighters to the laws of your land is a breach of the Geneva Convention. Better get a better understanding of who the laws apply to and who they do not.

No, Bush did not. Enemy combatants are not afforded the protection of the Constitution, Indeed, to subject enemy fighters to the laws of your land is a breach of the Geneva Convention. Better get a better understanding of who the laws apply to and who they do not.

The point was that he suspended it, and that any american could be sent there as a "terrorist," and therefore be denied habeus corpus.



~Brad~

I'm bowing out, you win. I obviously cannot make a point to save my life.


Peace~

I'm bowing out, you win. I obviously cannot make a point to save my life.

You just made one.

I'm bowing out, you win. I obviously cannot make a point to save my life. You just made one.

Well, there is no point in making a point, which isn't being understood, or such...

It's...pointless. (no humor intended)

~L

The founding fathers, today would be considered conservatives.

That's true if you're talking about true conservatism.

The people who abolished slavery were overwhelmingly "right wingers" by today's standards.

That's false. Today's right-wingers are not true conservatives; they are neo-conservatives. Big difference. Most true conservatives are somewhat left of center in today's political climate.

On 29 September 2006, the U.S. House and Senate approved the Military Commissions Act of 2006, a bill which would suspend habeas corpus

Uhhhhh, Lucas? You may want to try again. By your own words.

As did Bush, see following:

On 29 September 2006, the U.S. House and Senate approved the Military Commissions Act of 2006, a bill which would suspend habeas corpus for any alien (noncitizen) determined to be an "unlawful enemy combatant engaged in hostilities or having supported hostilities against the United States"[2][3] by a vote of 65-34.

Don't look like GW did spit. By your own words the US congress did it.

(Citizen)Mike's Daily LogDecember 5, 2006 14:11:58

The people who abolished slavery were overwhelmingly "right wingers" by today's standards. That's false. Today's right-wingers are not true conservatives; they are neo-conservatives. Big difference. Most true conservatives are somewhat left of center in today's political climate.

this is about as true as me saying "todays liberals and not true liberals, they are facists, somewhat left of far left.

(Citizen)drmiler

Ooops, sorry, i meant congress did it, and Bush supported it. My apologies.