We should recognize that Lincoln and Eisenhower, while they were Republicans of their time, would hardly be accepted as such by the current Republican party, which has been so far skewed to the lunatic fringe right that genuine Republicans of only 20 or 30 years ago would hardly realize it. Richard Nixon, for example, brought about the EPA, a favorite whipping boy of the current Repubs; he also advocated a national health care system and a national living wage. Horrors! Eisenhower, as previously noted, began NASA and the interstate highway system, surely despicable examples of "big gummint." Even St Ronald, the supposed icon of today's Repubs, was willing to work across the aisle, and RAISED TAXES numerous times.

So if " Even St Ronald, the supposed icon of today's Repubs, was willing to work across the aisle, and RAISED TAXES numerous times "

Than WHY OH WHY are Oblame-o and Harry and Nancy NOT, I say NOT willing to work across the aisle.

1.) BO, I will veto if it passes the senate and house ( which means it takes reps AND dems )

2.) Harry, by himself, has repeatedly tabled, shelved, and ignored over 350 current bills that have been passed in the house.

3.)His leader BO makes Harry look like such a dunce.

When the elections change the senate, BO will say " I didn't know Harry was doing this till I read it in the newspapers"
He'll throw that SOB right under the bus .

4.) Now take Nancy, a senile, foolish bully, who really does need a teleprompter.

She can't even say "I am" without confusing her listeners.

5.) Bills are proposed. the HOUSE AND the SENATE ( hear that Harry? ) vote.

If it passes both houses, the president vetoes or signs it.

We at present have a dictator in the white house who has no regard for the Constitution, it's his way or else.

You can go back and forth over the last 150 years and argue who did what.

But what matters now is the crisis the country is going through NOW.

The ACA was not a conservative accomplishment. Medicare and Medicaid were not conservative accomplishments. The Voting Rights Act was not a conservative accomplishment. The Space Program was not a conservative accomplishment. The Interstate Highway System wan not a conservative accomplishment. Social Security was not a conservative accomplishment. Recovering from the Great Depression was not a conservative accomplishment. The Emancipation Proclamation (an executive order) was not a conservative accomplishment. Indeed, "We the People" would still be British subjects had the Founding Fathers been conservatives. So let's hear it. What have been the great conservative accomplishments in our history?

The reason it makes sense to require health insurance is so when you get sick and have to go to the emergency room the rest of us don't get stuck with the tab because you don't have insurance. The point I was trying to make regarding auto insurance is that if you are in a an accident through no fault of your own, if you used the health insurance company's model they would consider that accident a "per-exisiting condition" and deny you the ability to purchase insurance going forward. If everyone were required to go to a government owned and run clinic or hospital to get their medical care that would be a government takeover. The ACA isn't

The ACA was not a conservative accomplishment. Medicare and Medicaid were not conservative accomplishments. The Voting Rights Act was not a conservative accomplishment. The Space Program was not a conservative accomplishment. The Interstate Highway System wan not a conservative accomplishment. Social Security was not a conservative accomplishment. Recovering from the Great Depression was not a conservative accomplishment. The Emancipation Proclamation (an executive order) was not a conservative accomplishment. Indeed, "We the People" would still be British subjects had the Founding Fathers been conservatives. So let's hear it. What have been the great conservative accomplishments in our history?

In an 1858 letter, Lincoln said, “I have declared a thousand times, and now repeat that, in my opinion neither the General Government, nor any other power outside of the slave states, can constitutionally or rightfully interfere with slaves or slavery where it already exists.” In a Springfield, Ill., speech, he explained, “My declarations upon this subject of negro slavery may be misrepresented, but can not be misunderstood. I have said that I do not understand the Declaration (of Independence) to mean that all men were created equal in all respects.” Debating with Sen. Stephen Douglas, Lincoln said, “I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of … making voters or jurors of Negroes nor of qualifying them to hold office nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races, which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality.”

Almost 150 years after it was proposed by Abraham Lincoln, black colonization still ranks among the most controversial and least understood policies of the Civil War. Premised upon racial separation, this movement sought to establish a distinct black nationality by removing the slave population to Liberia and the Caribbean. It rightly strikes the modern reader as a relic of racial bigotry and misguided paternalism. Yet for the better part of the war, the United States government extensively studied and even subsidized black resettlement.

Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that—

I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.


Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them; and more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:
Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.


I now reiterate these sentiments, and in doing so I only press upon the public attention the most conclusive evidence of which the case is susceptible that the property, peace, and security of no section are to be in any wise endangered by the now incoming Administration. I add, too, that all the protection which, consistently with the Constitution and the laws, can be given will be cheerfully given to all the States when lawfully demanded, for whatever cause—as cheerfully to one section as to another.

There is much controversy about the delivering up of fugitives from service or labor. The clause I now read is as plainly written in the Constitution as any other of its provisions:

"No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law or regulation therein be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."


It is scarcely questioned that this provision was intended by those who made it for the reclaiming of what we call fugitive slaves; and the intention of the lawgiver is the law. All members of Congress swear their support to the whole Constitution—to this provision as much as to any other. To the proposition, then, that slaves whose cases come within the terms of this clause "shall be delivered up" their oaths are unanimous. Now, if they would make the effort in good temper, could they not with nearly equal unanimity frame and pass a law by means of which to keep good that unanimous oath?

There is some difference of opinion whether this clause should be enforced by national or by State authority, but surely that difference is not a very material one. If the slave is to be surrendered, it can be of but little consequence to him or to others by which authority it is done. And should anyone in any case be content that his oath shall go unkept on a merely unsubstantial controversy as to how it shall be kept?