December 31
Rex Der Hause
Ministry of Truth
and you will stop. don't MAKE IT HAPPEN!!!!!!!!!! let it grow This the faith my Father taught me - and my Father in LAW taght my mate. So let it be written. So let it be done.... otherwise..... Hurry along you don't want to be LATE Butt.. Buttt.. I"M not going anywhere.... and NEITHER are YOU oh....sillyme, NO , not late in the sense of your silly temporal sytem which doesn't even allow me to show my true age.. Late as in the LATE MR DENT I men LATE in it's TRUE sence, you know DEAD..... Bit of THREAT actually come to think of it..... silly things to use to try to control a warrior priest, so I forget sometimes that it actually works on some Humans


Token's Links
FEBRUARY 11, 2013 2:03PM

Here's what I was waiting for trig to boast about

Rate: 6 Flag
 You may or may not have been following the fun I've been having with trig, mostly on OS, (Moral Authority and the Poor Man's Drone) but on oursalon as well. Here's what I was waiting for him to admit:

I never learned "Pit Bull", I just like to tease them and hear them bark.
The way you communicate with pit bulls is with a club ( No offense, sweetie ;-) )
Yeah I'm a pit bull, and you're a rat with a painful hip replacement and an infirm wife. No wonder you're in a bad mood. Say what ya will. Won't be back to this particular blog, although congrats are in order for getting quite a bit of attention as compared to your usual couple of comments.
Just read through Bill's thread and laughed as I pictured perfectly in my mind you working yourself up to a foamy rabid lather, at least as much as a little old man can do that. Left a comment there that mentions you, as you had also done the same for me previously a half dozen times or so it seems.
Later rude... you suck at the art of debate, especially compared to Bill. Guess we all have to work with whatever we got. Enjoy whatever time you have left before the home. Relax.. have a few laughs. Go outdoors and sniff some fresh air. Just be sure to take your cell phone in case you fall.
So trig, glad you agree- you absolutely are just as smart as a pit bull

What's your point?

wrong picture trig, picture me laughing my ass off as you and bill try to argue LEGALLY that you have morals, all the while demonstrating how immoral you are- as you are demonstrating here

Thanks for making my point so well in your last comment. You delight in savaging the infirm and the helpless. Killing children is as nothing to you. You are demonstrating your true inner self.

Just wanted you to spell it out for everyone.
Thanks, and you have a nice day. ;-)
 emphasis added "
This is not even so much about Legality vs Morality, as it is about the bullying that goes on on OS, with a tacit approval that drives many timid but excellent bloggers away. I've always tended to mirror my reaction to such stuff by how I'm approached. But seriously, unless someone is going to try to track me down and show up on my front porch ( and with jerk offs like trig, you can't exclude that possibility)  it's all just an exchange of electrons.By trying to spread the dust-up from OS to oursalon.  Trig really makes me wonder if he isn't going to push it past that. I have both an excellent Police force and an excellent pistol waiting if he does. But why should we even let people here push it to where you have to wonder?
I've got surgery tommorrow- back later
take care
Bill Beck addendum:
 from his post:
just one final question Bill, Annuit Coeptis was taken as "GOD" approves of our undertakings. You sure he approves of killing children? Or is Obama god?
Oh, as for the quote, and its meaning in the context established by the author, if you read the post, gave it a tiny bit of thought, and if you are familiar with the image, it should all come together for you.

The meaning of "he" in the quote means, as determined by the author's context, all who take part in the global economy...approve it. All are complicit. That is the theme. Given that all are complicit, one man did not come along at the end of this historical period and create the evil within it. The evil within it has roots as old as history.
so bill, what you're saying is, you don't understand Latin either?
as if it mattered, you want me to post all the comments you've deleted here, or you want to explain them?
"we" approve would be annuimus
and as to Flounce, bill? you wish
back after surgery

Your tags:


Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:


Type your comment below:
Whew, thought you were going to have a picture of his dick here!

I Don't have a microscope-
My dick is, IS, something to boast about if ever their was . . . something. I'll post a pic later, after I take one. Never thought I'd have to prove you don't need a microscope.

I am sorry rude, for bringing your woman into this. That's about all I gotz. Keep the hip oiled. Quit hatin' and accusing moi of geriatric mugging in Cincinnati or wherever, please. Represent yourself well when you can, even if you're decrepit. That I can respect.. if you'd prefer I don't comment at your blog just say so

takes a man, I'd say- thanks for manning up ( I'm sorry- personning up) I don't mind your commenting on my posts. I don't mind your being an asshole ( I felt threatened- everyone knows I'M the biggest asshole around ) Just sayin sometimes assholes have to realize they scare people. You scare a lot of people around here. And sometimes assholes have to stick together when normal people start "legalizing" themselves into hurting each other.

You ( and congratulations, your kid very much. too) are warrior enough to understand not picking on people who can't defend themselves, and not taking your personal piss fights or horseplay to inappropriate venues where people don't understand that what is really going on is no more nor less than a garden variety piss fight ( like I've had with my 5 brothers since i was 8, when I had the complete set)

The point I was trying to make to you and Bill both is that some things are LEGAL, but not MORAL The moral argument always takes precedent.I'm pretty sure you get that- sometimes I wonder if Bill does or not. ( I don't mean that disparagingly- i just can't figure out his dogged legalese over a moral question)

Feel free to stop back and call me an asshole anytime, just prefer you smile when you say it :-)

Wasn't Cincinnati, north of there- what I was puzzled about was that I didn't get myself killed- and my regards to your woman as well
Rude, my morals are not in question, first of all. Second, the only thing we have discussed is Obama and the war. The main questions have been things like war crimes prosecution. That is a legal issue, not a moral one. Frankly, I don't see where you or I an anyone else has moral ground to accuse anyone. I dont have the slightest interest in that.

I'm befuddled by your moral posturing, when you are constantly disrespectful. You slide from war crime...all the way to my view of morals. I don't see your point or your reason for concern. My morals are intact, and my business. Why do you make them yours? What do you want? And why am I a subject in your fight with Trig?
So if enough zombies deny a war crime is a war crime, that makes it not a war crime? Nice try.
What does that even mean, Libby?

see that's what I don't get. Do you really not understand that as long as you lend your support to having one man ( Obama oshmama- he's just an actor playing a role- a puppet dangled by the set of crony capitalists who happen to be in favor Now, as opposed to when Bush was in) have the power to order death without any consultation, and and involving an AVERAGE of THIRTY non targeted people , including women and children, it IS a question of morals, and your support makes it a question of YOUR morals.

"It's legal" ( Just as it's legal to execute your dog- and was once legal to execute your slave) doesn't cut it any more than "I was just following orders"- what really puzzles me Bill, is do you really NOT get that? I thought you were a fellow warrior. Am I wrong?
Sorry, I forgot. A female voice not welcome pettily involving herself among the men, right Bill? And in your limited perspective all that exists are patriarchal systems, humanist ones have no possiblity in your world so we shouldn't yap on about that in such a serious and grandiose discussion.

And let's just get under the nice warm cozy crony blanket of collective guilt and sleep through the FURTHER erosion of our constitution and bill of rights cuz since the beginning of time the patriarchy and might makes right and social Darwinism will prevail and yadda yadda yadda. Of all the lowest forms of apologism for Obama and his cabal of opportunists, this is the most craven. Well, he didn't invent corruption, right? Duh. Lesser evilism and all being what it is. And who measures that crony Dems in a bubble?

Don't dare criticize anyone now in power in the saturated with corruption matrix system, particularly Obama, since he is doing his full out best talking the talk for us all, just don't pay attention to the walk he is walking domestically and globally.

No room for sissies who are asking for peace and equality and sanity for the environment. Who are calling out war crimes and others who are twisting the law along with Obama to deny war crimes are war crimes and assuming the rights of a dictator should be impeachable to citizens who were serious about being citizens.


What that means is, lets go back 200 years . Owning slaves is legal. They can be killed legally in the same manner an owner kills cattle.

Do you say that because it's legal, it's some how MORAL?


Welcome to the age of personhood, you're as welcome to be a person of morals and a Warrior of Justice as well as any man, better than most. We may take a different view of what happens when some one dies ( or is killed in this instance) but we both recognize dishonorable killing. Now you can tell me you don't need my permission, and I'll say, I know, that's just my way of letting you know that, not in spite of the fact that you are a pacifist, BUT BECAUSE you follow it truly, you have my respect.

I always did love flower children. ( if I may term you thus)
First of all, you are building a straw man out of a bunch of false premises.

Lets narrow it all down. I see that you place yourself as my judge. I see that you judge me based upon the difference in our politics. I see that the ONLY aspect of the difference of our politics which remders only me immoral is my support of one politician.

You are entitled to whatever opinion you like, but you will just have to settle with the notion that I don't give a flip of what you think about my politics. You are trying a weak manipulative trick. It is my view.

I have said plenty of times that we live in an era of changing conditions with regard to war. That is not my view. That is the standard view. I dont think war is a good thing. I opposed the adventurism of the previous administration, most notably Iraq. War, however, can be a necessary thing. The anti-West radicals who dropped the WTC, and pledge to the destruction of the U.S. must be stopped. The question is, what does it take to stop them? I am neither a policy maker, nor a military professional making this assessment. Neither are you. We can't know with certainty what is just too little, just a bit too much, and just enough. I don't and I sure as fuck know that you dont.

From that position of not knowing what it takes, you take the extreme arrogance to presume to judge my morals. To form your own opinion, do whatever you want. But this is a problem that exists in the real world. I am not remotely capable of being manipulated by you because you say my political choice does not suit your morals.

I have not seen you once admit to being wrong. You dodge by saying, "you bore me", etc. You call names. You coerce. Now you want to claim moral superiority. I dont know what to say about that. If you want to call me immoral, go for it. Just be sure to include your reason. I dont vote the way you would like, therefore I am immoral. Knock yourself out, dude. That bullshit walks. This is America. Find another pigeon.
Rude, this will probably bore you but, 200 years ago you could not kill slaves like they were cattle. At least, it was against the law. You might get away with it. That is another question. George Zimmerman may get away with it now, but it is illegal. And it was illegal 200 years ago.
yeah, bill you're right, it does bore me. Apparently all those tales of Masters killing slaves at will because they WERE the law are just made up. I know, I've read "Mandingo", and it is, after all, just an entertaining piece of fiction. Stuff like that never could have really happened. It was ILLEGAL.
cut to the chase bill, situation I described at your blog- MORAL or IMMORAL?
No, Rude. Legality and morality part ways often. It was also moral at the time to own slaves. Some make that argument in some places today. Morals are subjective, Rude. They change based upon the person, the place, and the time.

Trying to stick war and morality together has always been next to impossible. You said that you own a gun, and would shoot Trig if he were to show up on your porch with bad intentions. That is war on a very small scale. Is that moral? Either you think it is, or you think it is a justifiable departure from morality in the strict sense for self defense.

This war on terrorism is the same thing on a larger scale. It is an issue of defense as determined by those doing it. You can deny it if you like, but it is not for you to say. It may be. September 11, 2001 makes the case that it may be.

You stand on your "moral" highground claiming that you would actually shoot Trig if he meant to do you harm. You are probably supported by law if it is done under certain conditions. That is a personal decision. You made it. You own the gun. You prepare. You.

I do not own a gun. I wont own one. And if someone breaks in, I wont use a gun against them unless they bring one to me. That is my moral stand. There are too many guns. That is my skin in that game. My decision. My home. My personal life investment. That is where my morals are. I support your right to defend yourself, and vote how you choose. You call me "immoral" even though I an not taking any action in the war, or warlike action in my home. You have some fancy "morals."
^^ Talk about building "straw man out of a bunch of false premises."! ^^

And darn tooting I find you morally deficient, Beck! You Whine about people doing to you EXACTLY what you do to them, you call the murder of children and American citizens a "success" and you aid and abet Obama on each and every one of his lies and war crimes. To top it off you have REPEATEDLY proven what a misogynistic ass you are.

Morals? You ain't got a one, dude. All you have is bluster and chest beating bullshit.
Rude, the first white person convicted of killing a black person in the Mississippi was in our lifetimes. I think it was in the 1980's. Slavery had ended 117 years earlier, yet there were no convictions until that time. Just because it happened with impugnity does not mean it was legal. Now, as to your boredom, I don't give a fuck. Maybe if you were not kso easily bored, you'd learn something. Boredom is YOUR problem, not mine. You're wrong on the facts. Deal with it. Grow up. It's time.
SBA...I once wrote a post about Burger King making a chocolate sundae with bacon. You called me anti pork, or something. That was hilarious.

"Hogophobe" was your word. I'm no doctor, but I think you're nuts.

Either you get it or you don't. It's a MORAL question. You know, the kind that come up in the "fog of War" and prevent you from from killing non-combatants. If the prez wants to play "Commander in chief" and play as if he had any understanding of moral vs immoral war, he needs to put on his big boy panties and take MORAL responsibility for his actions. Yep, I hold him responsible. I hold you responsible for endorsing it, and don't give that "WE" crap.

Apparently that's the way it is and that's the way it will stay- I got things to do tomorrow, I'm going to bed. You are welcome to stay here and play with yourself as long as you feel you need to. Turn out the lights when you leave- back in about a week.
That's me and about 63 million other people.

Bill- WTF? your the guy who just told me that executing a slave was illegal? you can't remember your legalisms any further back thann that?

really shouldn't let myself get drawn back into this- so your estimation is that there are about 63 million immoral assholes out there? funny, I would have thought there were more than that.
Bill Beck says:

"this will probably bore you but, 200 years ago you could not kill slaves like they were cattle. At least, it was against the law. You might get away with it. That is another question. George Zimmerman may get away with it now, but it is illegal. And it was illegal 200 years ago."

Misdirection; the unreal...Weak argument, Bill. Isn't that the point Herr Rudy is making? It's illegal; it's immoral; yet they're trying to get away with it? When will we ever learn?

I'm reading Frederick Douglass right now [more on him later], and here's what Mr. Douglass had to say about those who would think themselves above the law, as well as those who allow such unchecked arrogance:

"I will not say that this most horrid murder produced no sensation in the community.It did produce sensation, but not enough to bring the murderess to punishment.There was a warrant issued for her arrest, but it was never served.Thus she escaped not only punishment, but even the pain of being arraigened before a court for her horrid crime."

This is Frederick Douglass' description of a murder: "...murdered my wife's cousin, a young girl between fifteen and sixteen years of age,mangling her person in the most horrrible manner, breaking her nose and breastbone with a stick..."
good evening steve- thanks for stopping in, feel fee to dance with MR Beck as long as you care to, I'll leave him in your care, I got surgery in the morning Thanks

night all.
Nah. I was just passing the alley, and i saw what seemed an unfair fight, Herr Austin; good luck tomorrow.
Steve, I wasn't making an argumment. Columbus Ohio is the capitol of Ohio. That is not an argument. That is a fact. It was illegal to kill slaves like cattle 200 years ago. That is not an argument. That is a fact.

We go to those odd places because Rude tries to use them in arguments. They are false premises. False premises invalidate arguments. Furthermore, the fact that it was done with impugnity does not mean that it was legal.
Beck, you REALLY need to lay off the booze. Your last comment to me made even less sense than normal.

I also noted that your ONLY response was a personal attack.

BTW, these are the traits and signs of narcissism, which is classified as a mental illness...

*An obvious self-focus in interpersonal exchanges
*Problems in sustaining satisfying relationships
*A lack of psychological awareness (see insight in psychology and psychiatry, egosyntonic)
*Difficulty with empathy
*Problems distinguishing the self from others (see narcissism and boundaries)
*Hypersensitivity to any insults or imagined insults (see criticism and narcissists, narcissistic rage and narcissistic injury)
*Vulnerability to shame rather than guilt
*Haughty body language
*Flattery towards people who admire and affirm them (narcissistic supply)
*Detesting those who do not admire them (narcissistic abuse)
*Using other people without considering the cost of doing so
*Pretending to be more important than they really are
*Bragging (subtly but persistently) and exaggerating their achievements
*Claiming to be an "expert" at many things
*Inability to view the world from the perspective of other people
*Denial of remorse and gratitude

Congrats, dude. You nailed almost all of them.
If you say so SBA, it must be true.
tr ig in the title always guarantees 4 to 6 rates and a comment thread ranging from slightly contentious to full on acrimony.
typical monday night
...and Dino returned.
tr ig is mine! back off you crazy beyotches! *snort*
Title of next post: tr ig is/has a big dick. You decide!
This is so exciting. Who will win? And important things are being resolved, right here! It's not just some kind of personal animus, or insistence on one's own astonishingly narrow worldview, or inability to respect legitimately different opinions, or anything like that. So exciting!

refute the logic of this as your position:

As commander in chief:

it is acceptable to use the military to kill international terrorists who have killed non combatants in time of peace and not in a war zone.

it is acceptable to kill an average of 30 non combatants as "collateral damage"

It is acceptable to do this without warning or attempting to warn non combatants away

It is acceptable to do this without consulting any other person but on the your own personal authority and responsibility, by your own examination of evidence.

the killing of children is acceptable,

true or false?
congrats bill, you've just accepted the reasoning of Booth, Oswald, and anyone who might sneak a "child Bomb" into the presence of Obama and detonate it.

My position is that that would be morally wrong?

Your position is?
congrats bill, you've just accepted the reasoning of Booth, Oswald, and anyone who might sneak a "child Bomb" into the presence of Obama and detonate it.

My position is that that would be morally wrong

Your position is?
I normally would leave a post like this alone because it's nothing but a personal shot for no good reason but, being as Tr ig is willing to talk here and the damned post is about him, I might as well put my two sense in. Not about the post; the post isn't worth the time it took to read it, but about the comment stream. About the post, all I can say is that warriors and lawyers are all well and good but my first expectation is that in either case I prefer to deal with adults.

I've raised moral questions about the drone attacks on two or three threads you've participated in and I find it odd that you haven't gotten around to addressing a single comment, just gone on to assert over and over that there is zero ambiguous about these deaths, as if the only way to justify them is by legal means by definition. If you close the argument when you state it, the conversation is pointless.

Wars don't have due process. That's not a moral mistake, it's a legal mistake, and yet you keep claiming that the lack of due process is immoral, but "due process" isn't a moral term. Don't jump to a legal argument then accuse everyone else of doing what you're doing.

We aren't at war with countries any more, we're at war with transnational entities. Saying it's immoral to go after people going after us is an argument against war in general, but you're no pacifist.

When can you go after organizational actors in other countries? I gave you that answer. Maybe you have a different opinion but, if so, make it already. My answer is that you can when the country complaining (or not complaining) doesn't have operational control over the part of its territory from which efforts to harm our country or our nationals are being launched. People who cross the Pakistani border kill Americans, who are there with permission of the Afghan government, and the Pakistani government does not control the areas from which they come. If they did, one of two things would happen:

1. The Pakistanis would prevent and possibly arrest nationals crossing to fight in Afghanistan, like would happen with any country that does maintain control over its entirety, such as Great Britain, Germany, Russia, Japan, China, or even Egypt.

2. The Pakistani government would side openly with people from its territory killing Americans, in which case we might have an old-fashioned declared war on our hands.

In short, if they can't control the portions of their territory from which threats to American lives are launched, we can't respect sovereignty they don't exercise.

Sooner or later we have to address the moral issue of human shields. Does someone who launches a missile from the roof of a hospital have operational immunity from retaliation? If so, all combat will eventually evolve to use human shields. This issue comes up again and again with regards to drones. As many have pointed out - the number of young casualties represents a REDUCTION in the number of young casualties when comparing to more traditional armed methods such as aerial bombing. As Tr ig among others point out, though instances of this may in fact be immoral, saving your outrage for this President makes readers suspicious that a lack of outrage about similarly immoral predecessors makes your stance look suspiciously like these children represent your excuse rather than your reason.

The current lack of oversight is appalling. However, if you want more oversight, write both the White House and Congress. What actions have you taken?

I don't know the individual cases nearly well enough to know who targeted was how big a threat. It would really help to know that because there is a lot at stake in two directions.

A last point: You're making a legal/moral argument on the basis of what is ultimately a legal term: War Crime. Not War Injustice, War Crime. Your term.
New stuff!

Be it resolved: Bill is a monster who thrills to the death of children.


I'll be the moderator.
It's late. Two Cents. Not Sense.
Alright, I'm going to bed.

If you (allegedly) reasonable people want me to moderate your debate, I'm going to need a date and time.
No, kosher, I've demonstrated the "morality" of war, as someone who has participated in war at a very personal if not a military level

trig and I have been playing war

He lost when he lost his head and outed himself as delighting in savaging an old, sick, weak, "enemy" with an infirm wife.

I howled when he came out with that.

granted he had been thoroughly provoked.
He "lost" it.

Forever after when he comes on with moral outrage, I have merely to throw those words back at him and he is made ridiculous.

That was the whole point of this exercise- I don't know why bill chose to involve himself at the level he did, but he is also easily baited and shows off his weakness of morality by tenaciously refusing to understand any moral argument-

This sort of thing apparently outrages you, as it should. which is why you shouldn't defend it when PJ, Tom, Trig, Bill and others engage in it.

Not meaning to lecture, but, Morality is what separates us from animals not Law- Law is a higher order.

When things degenerate from law, then we are left with Payback
Which is the system you've just seen demonstrated.

I don't care that much to live in it, but morality and justice DEMAND "Payback" ( Balance/harmony- it settles down when everyone else has killed off the trouble makers- never vice versa)

Interesting co-incidence that you stop by as I wake up and can't sleep so come to check this, still not sure who writes this stuff :-)

Anyway, catch you later- gotta go get some sleep
Rude, that is jibberish on so many levels. Maybe it makes sense to you, but I assure you it is only you.

1) "This sort of thing apparently outrages you, as it should. which is why you shouldn't defend it when PJ, Tom, Trig, Bill and others engage in it." (You are actually trying to manipulate Kosh from making a point against your bad argument thru coercion. As this list grows, you lose the ability to delude yourself that you are right.)

2) "Not meaning to lecture, but, Morality is what separates us from animals not Law- Law is a higher order." The war is not solely a question of morality. All actions taken by a human or groups of them have moral consequences, no doubt. But not acting also has consequences. You place yourself as omnicient in this as if you know that taking no action will not result in consequences that have what YOU would consider an immoral outcome. You don't and can't know that. Much suffering could result from not acting. You may delude yourself into the notion that you know something that most of the world can't know, but obviously, the world does not share your view.

3) "I don't care that much to live in it, but morality and justice DEMAND "Payback" ( Balance/harmony- it settles down when everyone else has killed off the trouble makers- never vice versa) " This portion is also lunatic raving. "Morality and justice demand payback"? Complete nonsense. {On the concept of reciprocity, which this most closely touches, Kosher has stated, and so have I, that you never answer questions, or state alternatives. You merely judge."

4) "That was the whole point of this exercise- I don't know why bill chose to involve himself at the level he did, but he is also easily baited and shows off his weakness of morality by tenaciously refusing to understand any moral argument-

I commented at this point because you said this

"...The point I was trying to make to you and Bill both is that some things are LEGAL, but not MORAL The moral argument always takes precedent.I'm pretty sure you get that- sometimes I wonder if Bill does or not. ( I don't mean that disparagingly- i just can't figure out his dogged legalese over a moral question) "

I was not involved in your fight with Trig. I did not have the slightest interest in it. You kept injecting my name into it. Talk about showing yourself to be ridiculous. You use your moral posturing with Trig, and after by claiming to have "won" something because he insulted you more heavily that you determine for yourself to have insulted him. Stupid reasoning, but that is between you and him. You call that not war, but a kind of war that gives you some sort of... Pure nonsense. But if you believe it, fine. Whatever it was, it had nothing to do with me. I entered at that point to say that all we talked about was the U.S. government and the war. I had no place in your stupid fight. My name need not be injected into it. And on your baiting tactic, you fail.

You seem to have no objective standard for what you say. Like Kosh said, you traipse back and forth from a legal term, and claim a moral standard. Then if someone takes on your use of the legal term with regard to the issue, you claim moral superiority for their not being able to me moral. It is garbage. A child would not get away with that silly argument.

Look, if it makes you feel good to declare yourself morally superior, go for it. It is your fantasy. You only have a problem asking me to agree with your fantasy. Stop asking me to agree. I do not agree. You do not seem morally superior. The issue is not solely moral wth regard to the war. Booth and Oswald...nonsense.
The following is a portion which analyses Lincoln's second inaugural. This was Lincoln's "malice toward none" speech. After the Civil War, it was Lincoln's position that we (the U.S.) should take the combatants back as countrymen, not moral inferiors...if you will. I think this stands in direct contrast to your position. You claim moral superiority. You are not even in the position that holds sway. You have just unilaterally declared yourself right, and the victor as you did in your "war with Trig." Lincoln's approach differs with yours.

"Lincoln's sense that the divine will was unknowable stood in marked contrast to sentiments popular at the time. In the popular mind, both sides of the Civil War assumed that they could read God's will and assumed his favor in their opposing causes. Julia Ward Howe's Battle Hymn of the Republic expressed sentiments common among the supporters of the Union cause, that the Union was waging a righteous war that served God's purposes. Similarly, the Confederacy chose Deo vindice as its motto, often translated as "God will vindicate us."[6] Lincoln, responding to compliments from Thurlow Weed on the speech, said that "... I believe it is not immediately popular. Men are not flattered by being shown that there has been a difference of purpose between the Almighty and them."[7]"

Pay special close attention to the end. "... I believe it is not immediately popular. Men are not flattered by being shown that there has been a difference of purpose between the Almighty and them."

You are not my judge, Rude.