Floyd, when Lincoln was campaigning for the first time, he did not advocate abolishing slavery, only containing it. But the South became paranoid, and was convinced that the next step would be abolishment, so they seceded. Kind of reminds me of the run on guns today. Please, could someone give me an INTELLIGENT answer to my question regarding the difference?

You're right Floyd. And, in 1964, when LBJ pushed through the Civil Rights Act, it so angered Southern Democrats that they left the party in droves and joined the Republican Party.

judie, Did you know the southern slave owners were mainly democrats? They believed in states rights overruled federal laws. The northern states were in control of the government being cities while the souther plantation owners had to pay tariffs because they had to import things and their exports were also taxed by the northern powers. The "abolishionists" such as John Brown tried to force his will on the south and died because of his defeat of Gen.Lee. Perhaps what Lincoln did was unconstitutional but he brought the union together. Had he not been successful perhaps we would not have won WW1 or WW2.

judie, I was taught the Civil War was about the southern states wishing to secede from the nation and Lincoln opposed it. Slavery was widespread in the U.S. not just in the south. I guess I need to study to find out if my teachers were mistaken. As to the debate about liberal or conservative; It seems to come down to the conservatives are opposed to abominations and the liberals support abominations. It only becomes apparent in the far left or far right. Those in the middle used to be termed "mugwumps" because sitting on a fence undecided, there mug was on one side and the wump was on the other. I suppose in Christianity they are called Laodiceans Christ said "I wish you were either hot or cold, but since you are lukewarm, I will spit you out of my mouth."

Someone tell me the difference between a liberal and a conservative. I thought I knew but lately it seems all I thought I knew is wrong.

Floyd, it may be true that Obama was elected only because of his race. Lincoln was only elected because he opposed the spread of slavery. He had no other qualifications and that turned out pretty good -- at least for the country, if not for Lincoln himself.

Floyd, OKC....I don't think crimes against white people, right or left, Christian or non-Christian are considered hate crimes. I believe we fall into the category of just being white and acceptable targets.

Have any of you that say race was not a factor in Obama's election seen YouTube's video of Howard Stern asking black people why they were going to vote for Obama? He deliberately asked false questions such as ,"Do you approve of Obama's choice of Gov. Palin as vice-president; Do you support Obama's being against abortion?" and other issues. All those interviewed showed evidence the ONLY reason they were going to vote for Obama was race. As I mentioned before, 12,000 were registered to vote in Skid Row in a 50 sq. block area in California, many @ 50 years old who had never voted before. But 70% of the black voters in Ca. voted against gay marriages. I can't complain about that. Muslims happen to be more opposed to gays and abortion than those who call themselves Christian. By the way, just because Robert Morey says Muslim's Allah is a Moon god does not hold up. The God of Christians and Jews, Who is called by various names such as El, Yah, or Eli bear a resemblance to Allah, the Arabian translation. Christians and Jews don't accept Mohammed as being more than a man and the Moslems don't consider the Messiah much more than a prophet. Not all Moslems are members of hate groups. Few white people hate blacks but by these forums sometimes it is hard to tell who hates who. There really are few racial hate crimes in the U.S.

Jamie...I looked at 8 different sites, before and after 9/11, for verification of your statement. I found nothing that quotes Cheney saying Iraq attacked the U.S. You posted one site as your reference. That says enough for your research efforts. On a personal note I think all of the Middle East has ties to Al-Quida as each has a radical sect of believers in the Muslim religion. There may be a high probability that most of the Middle East countries aided the attack on America. That does not change the fact that you can't find a quote from Cheney stating that Iraq did attack our country. Please try again. As for an expectation to believe anything, then back it up with data. Mindless speculation or political blather is for politicians.

Gary, Sallie, no I do not expect you to believe anything you don't want to believe-even if it is happening right in front of you-which it has been for years. It is also why I seldom address anyone on this board any more-hateful remarks from closed minds like Jeff, Bert supports forced sterilization, Jack never has a coherent thought-at least not a civil one. Sallie-you can look a little farther if you really are interested in researching this topic-I just chose what was easy to read and understand and also the fact that it was published after the invasion further illustrated my point. Although truly I don't see how any of you could not remember the emphasis the administration placed on linking Saddam to al-Qaeda during the run-up to the Iraq invasion. Iremember letters to the editor printed in the DO supporting the invasion of Iraq with the writers stating "they attacked us first." They were wrong, but the Bush administration was successful-they made people believe what was untrue.

My spelling is way off today. Hint to the posting police, I know it.

My apologies for such a long posting. Supposition and speculation in politics? My goodness. Who knew.

If this is the article you are referring to, again, no such quoteable statement as you allege. Implication and supposition on Cheney's part. No more, no less. WASHINGTON -- Vice President Dick Cheney, anxious to defend the White House foreign policy amid ongoing violence in Iraq, stunned intelligence analysts and even members of his own administration this week by failing to dismiss a widely discredited claim: that Saddam Hussein might have played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks. ADVERTISEMENT Evidence of a connection, if any exists, has never been made public. Details that Cheney cited to make the case that the Iraqi dictator had ties to Al Qaeda have been dismissed by the CIA as having no basis, according to analysts and officials. Even before the war in Iraq, most Bush officials did not explicitly state that Iraq had a part in the attack on the United States two years ago. But Cheney left that possibility wide open in a nationally televised interview two days ago, claiming that the administration is learning "more and more" about connections between Al Qaeda and Iraq before the Sept. 11 attacks. The statement surprised some analysts and officials who have reviewed intelligence reports from Iraq. Democrats sharply attacked him for exaggerating the threat Iraq posed before the war. "There is no credible evidence that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with 9/11," Senator Bob Graham, a Democrat running for president, said in an interview last night. "There was no such relationship." A senior foreign policy adviser to Howard Dean, the Democratic front-runner, said it is "totally inappropriate for the vice president to continue making these allegations without bringing forward" any proof. Cheney and his representatives declined to comment on the vice president's statements. But the comments also surprised some in the intelligence community who are already simmering over the way the administration utilized intelligence reports to strengthen the case for the war last winter. Vincent Cannistraro, a former CIA counterterrorism specialist, said that Cheney's "willingness to use speculation and conjecture as facts in public presentations is appalling. It's astounding." In particular, current intelligence officials reiterated yesterday that a reported Prague visit in April 2001 between Sept. 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta and an Iraqi agent had been discounted by the CIA, which sent former agency Director James R. Woolsey to investigate the claim. Woolsey did not find any evidence to confirm the report, officials said, and President Bush did not include it in the case for war in his State of the Union address last January. But Cheney, on NBC's "Meet the Press," cited the report of the meeting as possible evidence of an Iraq-Al Qaeda link and said it was neither confirmed nor discredited, saying : "We've never been able to develop any more of that yet, either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don't know." Multiple intelligence officials said that the Prague meeting, purported to be between Atta and senior Iraqi intelligence officer Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani, was dismissed almost immediately after it was reported by Czech officials in the aftermath of Sept. 11 and has since been discredited further. The CIA reported to Congress last year that it could not substantiate the claim, while American records indicate Atta was in Virginia Beach, Va., at the time, the officials said yesterday. Indeed, two intelligence officials said yesterday that Ani himself, now in US custody, has also refuted the report. The Czech government has also distanced itself from its original claim. A senior defense official with access to high-level intelligence reports expressed confusion yesterday over the vice president's decision to reair charges that have been dropped by almost everyone else. "There isn't any new intelligence that would precipitate anything like this," the official said, speaking on condition he not be named. Nonetheless, 69 percent of Americans believe that Hussein probably had a part in attacking the United States, according to a recent Washington Post poll. And Democratic senators have charged that the White House is fanning the misperception by mentioning Hussein and the Sept. 11 attacks in ways that suggest a link. Bush administration officials insisted yesterday that they are learning more about various Iraqi connections with Al Qaeda. They said there is evidence suggesting a meeting took place between the head of Iraqi intelligence and Osama bin Laden in Sudan in the mid-1990s; another purported meeting was said to take place in Afghanistan, and during it Iraqi officials offered to provide chemical and biological weapons training, according to officials who have read transcripts of interrogations with Al Qaeda detainees. But there is no evidence proving the Iraqi regime knew about or took part in the Sept. 11 attacks, the Bush officials said. Former senator Max Cleland, who is a member of the national commission investigating the attacks, said yesterday that classified documents he has reviewed on the subject weaken, rather than strengthen, administration assertions that Hussein's regime may have been allied with Al Qaeda. "The vice president trying to justify some connection is ludicrous," he said. Nonetheless, Cheney, in the "Meet the Press" interview Sunday, insisted that the United States is learning more about the links between Al Qaeda and Hussein. "We learn more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s," Cheney said, "that it involved training, for example, on [biological and chemical weapons], that Al Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems." The claims are based on a prewar allegation by a "senior terrorist operative," who said he overheard an Al Qaeda agent speak of a mission to seek biological or chemical weapons training in Iraq, according to Secretary of State Colin Powell's statement to the United Nations in February. But intelligence specialists told the Globe last August that they have never confirmed that the training took place, or identified where it could have taken place. "The general public just doesn't have any independent way of weighing what is said," Cannistraro, the former CIA counterterrorism specialist, said. "If you repeat it enough times . . . then people become convinced it's the truth." © Copyright 2003 Globe Newspaper Company.

Jamie - you are kidding aren't you. You want us to believe some leftist blog like commondreams.org which is published in the liberal rag Boston Globe. C'mon honey- you can do better than that!

Gary, Sallie, Bert, and Hateful Jeff: an article that sums up the Bush administration campaign to link Iraq and al-Qaida is at www.commondreams.org. It was published in the Boston Globe Sept. 16, 2003 "Cheney Link of Iraq, 9/11 Challenged". As you can see this was still happening after the Iraq invasion.

Sallie: and that information was wrong. They also put forth contacts by Iraq with al-Qaeda which were also wrong. Bush listened to no one who disputed what he said.

Bert, if the gays can overturn by court ruling the will of the people does that set precedence for all elections? They need to get off the streets and go home. Now they have another electric kool aid drinker to help in dru Barrymore wow what a mindless mass.

I don't recall Bert, I know it wasn't nice. lol

Well Bert, the Morris letter and Jamie are examples of 'pasting' the libtard talking points. These people don't research or investigate anything; they just drink their koolaid and 'paste'. Very intelligent. lol

Bert I'm sure he was to some depending on which committee your on./ From my understanding the president has much more intel than the rest. It was my understanding that Obama was allowed to see all of it the other day, thats when they said it's a jaw dropper, when you are first privy to it all.

Be patient with Jamie....perhaps she is doing research on Cheney. Research can be a giant pain in the butt. I know that all to well, and still at times I get my data wrong, and that leads to more research.

Jeff what was it that Jesse said about Obama when he thought the mike was off????????????

Lance I agree. My problem is black people never voting before. I hope they will get involved in this country and community whomever is running. Maybe they felt they didn't matter or vote mattered. They came out to see a black man get elected. Now maybe jesse and al will retire. It kind of makes their arguments null and void.

Gary Is this not where we need to follow the thinking of the liberals on letters printed by DOK and berate the DOK for printing the Morris letter?

Hey everybody - Jamie has the same talking points every time she posts. When you throw the facts at her, she runs away and hides.

Jeff Actually I think Obama, as a senator , may havew been privy to a lot of the intel for a long time. that is if he was interested in the intel

I'm wondering what Frances Morris means when she says we have an "education deficit" in our country the last eight years. Besided Switzerland, the US spends more on education per student than any other industrialized country in the world. Or does she mean our test scores are not good? Sounds like she doesn't know what she is talking about by listening to the teachers' unions about how Bush has been bad for education. Of course, that's not true. The US Department of Education website shows that federal spending for education under Bush rose from $38.4 billion in 2000 to $$88.9 billion in 2006 - whopping increase of 130%. I don't think Frances knows what she is talking about- too much libtard koolaid.

Jamie...I did my research on Cheney and his stance....the closest statement I have found is that he believed that Iraq and Saddam had ties with Al-Quida (spelling), but no where (except from the press) did I find an actual statement written or in interviews that he stated that "Iraq attacked us on 9/11. I will go search on any site that you suggest that says otherwise. All statements that I have found on the invasion were based on weapons of mass destruction.

You may be right Bert. I think now that Obama has been privy to the intel. He may slow down he is seeing how many threats their are to this country. I really hope Obama succeeds for the good of our country. I'm going to really try and get behind my new President something many should have done long ago toward Bush. It's funny Now Jamie is saying Cheney said Iraq, she doesn't know who said what, but calls Bush a liar daily. She gets her que's from hollywood and msnbc.

Jamie Come on , One date only please

jamie When did Cheney say that? If he said it many times you should be able to quote him on at least one occasion giving dates

Your addressing My President and Commander in Chief and my Flag and my country. I will not sit by and allow you to spew your venom to my President or My God anylonger without feedback!! It's funny you had to ask for a veterans day greeting when everyone posted greetings to all. I'll bet you complained daily so much that those around you was glad to see you leave.

Sallie: it was stated many times by vice-President Cheney that Iraq attacked us on 9/11-why did you put "invasion" in quotes-you don't think we invaded Iraq? If you do not think that the invasion of Iraq was based on that, then what was it based on in your opinion?

Did anyone notice that when asked a question Jamie disappears?

Jeff Obama probably will not get us into war but I do not think he will quickly pull the troops out of Iraq. What he will probably do is as Clinton did. allow us to be attacked and do nothing

Sallie your right on. We went into Iraq bsaed on Intel of WMd's that Colin Powell even signed onto as did the majority of congress. Saddam had 17 resolutions aganst his country that he violated. Sadamm tortured his own people. The same and many more that stood with us in the Gulf War. sadamm sent money for suicide bombers. The list goes on and on. The war became unpopular and thats where Jamie and the mdia and the likes started the Bush Bashing. Kind of a bandwagon slanderer. Their rhetoric helps no one but the enemy which is why they are useful idiots to our enemies. Hanoi Jane I mean Jamie doesn't care one bit about the safety and or security of this country. The truth is they hate Bush, Lets see if Obama gets us into war and the same rhetoric comes out.

Jamie Can you answer the question from Sallie??????????

Jamie When you put it on the board you address everyone here/

Jeff You said it very well Jamie has a closed mind and enjoys that condition. Well Jamie and others might as well get their computers ready to defend Obama on every step he make because if he make a mistake we will be on him just as Jamie and others like Jamie have been on Bush

Jeff: I do nor recall addressing you-and your hatefulness is why.

I would like to see data that reflects our "invasion" of Iraq was based on the idea that they attacked America. Did Bush or any other member of Congress (dem/rep) make this statement?

While I do think that race certainly played a part in voting for Obama, I think that the number of graduates from high school by Hispanics and blacks (note increased numbers)as registered voters also need consideration. I did not vote for Obama, but being of a different age group with opposite political views, this is normal. These younger voters have totally different aspirations and beliefs than we older folks. I can see why a black democratic president would be appealing to them. Good or bad for our nation is yet to be seen. The next four years will be the telling of the tale. Status dropout rates and changes in these rates over time differ by race/ethnicity. In general, the status dropout rates for Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics each declined between 1972 and 2006. However, for each year between 1972 and 2006, the status dropout rate was lowest for Whites and highest for Hispanics. Although the gaps between the rates of Blacks and Whites and between the rates of Hispanics and Whites have decreased, the patterns have not been consistent. The Black-White gap narrowed during the 1980s, with no measurable change during the 1970s or between 1990 and 2006. In contrast, the Hispanic-White gap narrowed between 1990 and 2006, with no measurable change in the gap during the 1970s and 1980s. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2008). The Condition of Education 2008 (NCES 2008-031), Indicator 23. Percentage of high school dropouts (status dropouts) among persons 16 to 24 years old, by race/ethnicity: Selected years, 1972-2006 Year Total1 Race/ethnicity2 White Black Hispanic 1972 14.6 12.3 21.3 34.3 1980 14.1 11.4 19.1 35.2 1985 12.6 10.4 15.2 27.6 1990 12.1 9.0 13.2 32.4 1995 12.0 8.6 12.1 30.0 1996 11.1 7.3 13.0 29.4 1997 11.0 7.6 13.4 25.3 1998 11.8 7.7 13.8 29.5 1999 11.2 7.3 12.6 28.6 2000 10.9 6.9 13.1 27.8 2001 10.7 7.3 10.9 27.0 2002 10.5 6.5 11.3 25.7 2003 9.9 6.3 10.9 23.5 2004 10.3 6.8 11.8 23.8 2005 9.4 6.0 10.4 22.4 2006 9.3 5.8 10.7 22.1 1Includes other race/ethnicity categories not separately shown. 2Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Beginning in 2003, respondents were able to identify as being more than one race. From 2003 onwards, the Black and White categories include individuals who considered themselves to be of only one race.

Katie Baker: Decent Christian men do not torture people.

Tom Farmer: President Bush is a liar. Iraq did not attack us. How many thousands of people are dead because of that lie? We don't know-we don't do body counts.

Duane Elmore: I never thought I would live to see the day that torture is American policy or that our country would invade and occupy a country to effect violent regime change on the grounds that they attacked us-when clearly they did not. That is the example of character that is in office right now. Our red state that you are so proud of sent back to Washington congressional representation that wants to continue the policies of the current president that have been nothing but a detriment to our country and that is putting it nicely.

To Chevelt. we on the right have listened to you on the lkeft complain about every move Bush has made. Yes he made mistakes, sometime very bad mistakes but he had lots of help from the Democrats in manyy of them. Our troops went to battle and they were handcuffed by Bush but the democrats stuck a knife in their backs, Bush and his adminb should have been on top of the financial mess better than they were. But so should the democrats as head of banking committees in both houses of congress.So yes we will be on Obama every mis step he makes and if you do not like it do not read it

Actually, Jeff, I was about to comment on that very point. But I think it weakens Ficklin's argument even more. It is certain (I think) that more black voters came out and voted for Obama. But-- and this is key-- if it weren't for Obama's skin color, would they have been more likely to vote for McCain. And the answer to that is almost certainly no. All Obama did was turn UNLIKELY Democratic voters into LIKELY Democratic voters. Similarly, Palin probably increased voter turn-out among Evangelical women. But they weren't voting for her because she was a WOMAN. That is, she didn't take potential Obama supporters and make them McCain supporters. But she probably DID make UNLIKELY Republican female voters LIKELY Republican female voters.

katie Baker and Tom farmer, I agree. The voices on the left blamed all the attacks on Clinton is why they went after Bush so hard. Now they want everyone to be a kinder gentler to Obama. When will it stop. Bush was blamed from everything from Global warming to Hurricanes. No one has ever deserved this much slander. I notice the left is ten times a viscous. case in Point Grandma being attacked by queers in california, pushed & spit on and screamed at by big men. Sending letters with white powder to churches wow how gentle the left really is. They scream out Bush is a nazi, he should be killed, he is a liar. When the false rumor of a republican said Obama should die here they came saying the republicans should apologize. The left is vicsous and dangerous. They won't accept the vote of the people. It's funny had this been the other way the right would have accepted the will of the people.

Lance I disagree, many older black's had never even voted. Many said they thought this day would neve come and they voted for Obama. Where they saying this day would never come for a democrat or a black man. I'll take the latter on this issue.

I'm not convinced by Nathan Ficklin's argument. He argued that "skin color obviously had more to do with [African-American] support than any other factor," but this isn't clear at all. Yes, Obama got 95% of the African-American vote. But in 1994, 88% went to Kerry. In 2000, 90% went to Gore. Indeed, since 1980, the Dem ticket has gotten 85% or more of the African-American vote. At best, Ficklin can claim that skin color had something to do with the result; but it doesn't seem like it was a significant factor. On the other side, yes, if McCain got 95% of the white vote, then we could talk about some latent racism. In general, the Republican ticket gets ca. 50-60% of the white vote. Unless McCain were a truly amazing candidate-- bigger than Reagan in 1984!-- there's no reason to imagine that he'd get anywhere near 95% of the vote unless there were some other factor at play.