To: rlmorel
The Lincoln-Douglas question is one of the few difficult ones. Both men made moral arguments, and Lincoln made specific objections to slavery on moral grounds. But it was not primarily a debate about morality. The key thing to know is that they were actual debates -- unlike the two-candidate press conferences we have now -- on the question of who the legislature would pick for the Senate. Knowing that, you know they were probably debating more of a political question with [some] moral arguments.
109 posted on
07/05/2011 9:56:18 PM PDT by
FredZarguna
(He played an aspiring Marine Biologist on TV. And he's practically a white dwarf, too.)
To: FredZarguna
I have always wondered why we do not have any real debates...but I think I know the answer...one candidate is always going to be inferior to another (one guess as to the usual party affiliation) and won’t agree unless structured a certain way.
I frikking HATE watching the “debates”, mostly a waste of time, although they are occasionally interesting in spots as was the case with Dukakis back in 1988...
143 posted on
07/06/2011 3:29:14 AM PDT by
rlmorel
("Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions." Gilbert K. Chesterton)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson