Another republican heard from...get over it move on.

I respect that most of you are not cop haters but please stop apologizing for me...the only thing I have done wrong is post on the wrong forum. Apologizing for me then calling me names won't work.

Rich apologize for your own idiocy I don't need an obvious republican and cop hater to help me out.

Well in my neck of the woods your av would be enough to get hung.

I never once called anyone by name that is a cop hater...they are here and thats a fact. Cops can't be cop haters. The ones like wabbit is the ones I am talking about..Republicans that can't get over losing the election. Then he turned on me and used the fact that I was a cop to attack me. The AV I use is strictly to piss him off only. I will change it when I feel like it.. Just get tired of being attacked by racist cop haters...I would admit that there are more disgruntled republicans on here than cop haters. Just because you are a cop don't mean you are a republican..the area I live in is all democrats and we control local elections with our vote. There fore I am a Democrat...but I don't like every thing they do...the reason some of you cops and retired cops pounce on me is because I am a democrat.Period. And don't get your panties in a wad because I warned Bob about you guys that took offense.

And if have not noticed cop haters here it's because you turn your head.

He should at least post one photo that is not blurred and legal.

Lol no name calling?...You should join blurru in GETTING OVER THE ELECTIOn...YOU LOST TOO!!!!!!!!

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Yeah really....sad that's the only one you saw..

In 1854, Sen. Stephen Douglas forced the Kansas-Nebraska Act through Congress. The bill, which repealed the Missouri Compromise of 1820, also opened up a good portion of the Midwest to the possible expansion of slavery.

Douglas' political rival, former Illinois Congressman Abraham Lincoln, was enraged by the bill. He scheduled three public speeches in the fall of 1854, in response. The longest of those speeches — known as the Peoria Speech — took three hours to deliver. In it, Lincoln aired his grievances over Douglas' bill and outlined his moral, economic, political and legal arguments against slavery.

But like many Americans, Lincoln was unsure what to do once slavery ended.

"Lincoln said during the Civil War that he had always seen slavery as unjust. He said he couldn't remember when he didn't think that way — and there's no reason to doubt the accuracy or sincerity of that statement," explains historian Eric Foner. "The problem arises with the next question: What do you do with slavery, given that it's unjust? Lincoln took a very long time to try to figure out exactly what steps ought to be taken."

Foner traces the evolution of Lincoln's thoughts on slavery in The Fiery Trial: Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery. He explains how Lincoln's changing thoughts about slavery — and the role of freed slaves — mirrored America's own transformation.

In the Peoria speech, Lincoln said that slavery was wrong, Foner says, and then admitted that he didn't know what should be done about it, even contemplating "free[ing] all the slaves, and send[ing] them to Liberia — to their own native land."

"Lincoln is thinking through his own position on slavery," says Foner. "[This speech] really epitomizes his views into the Civil War. Slavery ought to be abolished — but he doesn't really know how to do it. He's not an abolitionist who criticizes Southerners. At this point, Lincoln does not really see black people as an intrinsic part of American society. They are kind of an alien group who have been uprooted from their own society and unjustly brought across the ocean. 'Send them back to Africa,' he says. And this was not an unusual position at this time."

Foner traces how Lincoln first supported this kind of colonization — the idea that slaves should be freed and then encouraged or required to leave the United States — for well over a decade. Like Henry Clay, Lincoln also supported repealing slavery gradually — and possibly compensating slave owners for their losses after slaves were freed.

It was not until the Emancipation Proclamation, which declared the freedom of all slaves and then named 10 specific states where the law would take affect, that Lincoln publicly rejected his earlier views.

Enlarge image
Eric Foner is a history professor at Columbia University and the author of several books about the history of American race relations.

courtesy of the author
"The Emancipation Proclamation completely repudiates all of those previous ideas for Lincoln," says Foner. "[The abolishment of slavery is] immediate, not gradual. There is no mention of compensation and there is nothing in it about colonization. After the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln says nothing publicly about colonization."

Foner says many factors led to Lincoln's shift in his position regarding former slaves. Neither slave owners nor slaves supported colonization. Slavery was beginning to disintegrate in the South. And the Union Army was looking for new soldiers to enlist — and they found willing African-American men waiting for them in the South.

"As soon as the Union Army went into the South, slaves began running away from plantations to Union lines," Foner says. "And this forced the question of slavery onto the national agenda."

"Almost from the very beginning of the Civil War, the federal government had to start making policy and they said, 'Well, we're going to treat these people as free. We're not going to send them back into the slave-holding regions,'" Foner says. "And the Army opened itself up to the enlistment of black men. And by the end of the Civil War, 200,000 black men had served in the Union Army and Navy. And envisioning blacks as soldiers is a very, very different idea of their future role in American society. It's the black soldiers and their role which really begins as the stimulus in Lincoln's change [with regard to] racial attitudes and attitudes toward America as an interracial society in the last two years of his life."

Let me enter into this gun debate with my own thought....“What Reagan was able to do so successfully was to lay out a firm, tough and pure position and hold to it while things shook down and the other side moved, and waiting for them to come much closer to where he wanted them to be,” said Norman J. Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute. “I see Obama’s public statements on guns now being much more of that than anything else.”

The legislative process should begin by the end of February, when Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) plans to stitch together several proposals, including requiring background checks for all gun buyers, making gun trafficking a federal crime for the first time and limiting the size of ammunition magazines.

Expansion of background checks is the most popular proposal and enjoys overwhelming support in public polls. Four key lawmakers — Sens. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.), Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) and Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) — are drafting the legislative framework for a deal.

To accommodate gun rights proponents, the legislation could include limited exceptions for guns transferred between family members or rented for sporting purposes, according to senior aides.

For decades, liberal lawmakers — many of whom represent cities plagued by gun violence — have pushed for additional gun restrictions. They’ve wanted to reinstate an assault weapons ban ever since one version expired in 2004.

At a news conference last week, Rep. Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.) of Baltimore spoke about the shooting death of a 20-year-old nephew and said he sympathized with victims’ families.

“It is a painful thing to see your blood splattered on the walls of an apartment, to see tissue from your loved one splattered on walls,” Cummings said. “I understand why they are desperate for action.”

Over the years, however, action has been stymied by more moderate Democrats. Party leaders have steered away from discussions of guns — a strategy designed to win over moderate swing voters. But top Democrats think the Newtown school shooting, in which 20 children and six adults died, altered the political landscape.

Yes we do.

And you are a poser that got caught...fess up.

Dang bro...you are upset cause your guy lost...wow.

OK no one believes you are coming up with this nonsense on your own..reveal your sources.

So how do you explain the villainization of people like Sara Palin and her map after the shooting of Gaby Giffords, or the villainization of the Tea Party... or the recent lobbying for the return of the Fairness Doctrine by progressive politicians... Or for that matter the concern the media displays for PC speech in our country today? It would seem to me that there is a longing by a group in this country for the silence of dissenting thought... Why was the OWS as they attempted to shut down metropolitan business centers while at the same time conservatives were savaged for confronting their own members of congress?


I found this posted by someone else on the internet...busted.