I rant. I brag. I praise. I say things just to tick people off.
So be prepared to be offended and/or outraged from time to time, but know also that there's only an 80% chance that I meant to be offensive and/or outrageous.
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
My Anti-Lincoln Post of Last Week
Golf Guy--I challenged you to rebut my thesis on the Civil War. You've said nothing, and that's unlike you. Do you agree with me?
I read your thesis on the Civil War – several times in fact. I liked it. It was factual and therefore I saw no reason to rebut it. I guess I should have responded sooner with that fact and I guess I agree with you about Lincoln. I agree mostly because we have had 240 years to digest his actions and analyze their consequences. I doubt however I would have agreed with your view if we had lived during Lincoln’s time and I was a Northerner. The prologue to your thesis was that George W. is not as big a tyrant as Lincoln, but still a tyrant. On that point I disagree.
Since the inception of the constitution the three branches of the government have been trying to wrestle power from each other. While the constitution separates power between the three branches of government it doesn’t designate how much each branch gets and does not say they will have equal power. Lincoln was pushing the envelope. He was taking whatever power he could in an attempt to make the administrative branch stronger. So is Bush. I believe both Lincoln and Bush felt/feel that a strong executive branch is the key to a whole/safe country. I endorse what Bush is trying to accomplish and his means. While wiretaps without warrants seems anti-American these are dangerous times for America and I believe the President should do all he can to thwart the enemy. If he steps over the line then it is up to Congress and the judiciary to stop him or limit his power. If they don’t then his methods become policy. It’s that the way the Constitution is suppose to work? In two hundred years we’ll have a better perspective of Bush’s actions and will be able to determine if he did indeed keep us safe or was just a power monger.
I read your thesis on the Civil War – several times in fact. I liked it. It was factual and therefore I saw no reason to rebut it. I guess I should have responded sooner with that fact and I guess I agree with you about Lincoln. I agree mostly because we have had 240 years to digest his actions and analyze their consequences. I doubt however I would have agreed with your view if we had lived during Lincoln’s time and I was a Northerner. The prologue to your thesis was that George W. is not as big a tyrant as Lincoln, but still a tyrant. On that point I disagree.
ReplyDeleteSince the inception of the constitution the three branches of the government have been trying to wrestle power from each other. While the constitution separates power between the three branches of government it doesn’t designate how much each branch gets and does not say they will have equal power. Lincoln was pushing the envelope. He was taking whatever power he could in an attempt to make the administrative branch stronger. So is Bush. I believe both Lincoln and Bush felt/feel that a strong executive branch is the key to a whole/safe country. I endorse what Bush is trying to accomplish and his means. While wiretaps without warrants seems anti-American these are dangerous times for America and I believe the President should do all he can to thwart the enemy. If he steps over the line then it is up to Congress and the judiciary to stop him or limit his power. If they don’t then his methods become policy. It’s that the way the Constitution is suppose to work? In two hundred years we’ll have a better perspective of Bush’s actions and will be able to determine if he did indeed keep us safe or was just a power monger.
I don't think we need to wait that long to judge Bush. We sure as heck don't wait that long to judge other countries' leaders.
ReplyDelete