Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

What is the Difference Between Muamar Qaddafi and Abraham Lincoln?

Posted on 03/20/2011 6:47:46 AM PDT by ml/nj

Just wondering what people might have to say about this.

Both would say they tried to preserve their union. Both employed military might to do so and killed lots of their own citizens.

ML/NJ


TOPICS: History
KEYWORDS: libya; lincoln; qadd
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-248 next last
To: bcsco

Nice try, bosco. It’s your pal Little Pharma who is doing the judging, I am simply asking him if his judgement extends to Washington and Jefferson.

Maybe you can explain how or why Washington and Jefferson are exempt, if they are.

“OTOH, I suspect God has given his judgment on those gentlemen. “

As in the Epistle to Philemon? What was the advice there concerning Onesimus?


101 posted on 03/20/2011 11:32:02 AM PDT by Pelham (California, Mexico's most recent colony.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: bcsco
I wonder what Henry Clay, a slave owner, thought of his nephew’s position.

He didn't have him over for Christmas punch in 1865. Nascent abolitionist sentiment was fairly widespread in the South by 1860. Not dominant, not nearly a plurality, but the snowball had begun to roll down the hill.

The real unasked question in all this is where did antislavery sentiment come from? The answer was British social Christianity, the origin of Methodism, the Salvation Army, temperance and abolitionism. The British sent warships to disrupt the slave trade out of religous sentiment, not for imperial or commercial gain. That slavery was immoral, "wrong", had never been so strongly espoused or defended as in Victorian England and New England.

102 posted on 03/20/2011 11:33:15 AM PDT by Lonesome in Massachussets (Sulzberger Family Motto: Trois generations d'imbeciles, assez)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj

Your question reminds me of the same logic used by the left-wing when they continually asked: if we attacked Saddam Hussein then why not every other dictatorship? Why not Saudia Arabia? etc...

As long as you make an argument for some similarity that you percieve then you will just argue the point until exhuastion in order to not be wrong.

Lincoln was elected and was sworn an oath to protect the United States Constitution from ALL enemies both foreign and domestic.

The Confederates were determined to defy the Constitution and disregard it. They also attacked the United States forces as well.

It is amazing that some on FR here continue to want to argue for the unilateral right to secession. Yet they have done nothing to try rto have the Constitution amended to say such in all of this time. Instead they just rebel rause such as this thread does.


103 posted on 03/20/2011 11:36:45 AM PDT by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tickmeister
Ironic, isn't it, that a black Muslim from Africa now enslaves multiple generations of Americans in the US with the chains of taxation and the whip of government.
104 posted on 03/20/2011 11:37:42 AM PDT by PA-RIVER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: TheBigIf

“It is amazing that some on FR here continue to want to argue for the unilateral right to secession. Yet they have done nothing to try rto have the Constitution amended to say such in all of this time. Instead they just rebel rause such as this thread does.”

Just to add to this statement above:

There are some groups who are trying to do something in order to achieve the right to secession today and the recent past and guess what?

The majority of them are either Progressives (with a tinge of libertariansism) or all out Marxists.

Coincidence?


105 posted on 03/20/2011 11:43:52 AM PDT by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: omegadawn
Lincoln was a slave owner. Liberal historians try hide this by saying that the slaves were his wife's not his..

I've never seen this asserted before. Do you have a reference? I don't even see when they might have had an opportunity to own slaves.

ML/NJ

106 posted on 03/20/2011 11:44:37 AM PDT by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Lonesome in Massachussets
He didn't have him over for Christmas punch in 1865.

Well, that's unarguable since Clay died in the early '50s. But as you state, the South was not united in favor of slavery by any means. It was the large land owners who owned slaves, and they had the greatest political clout.

But, the anti-slavery sentiment was growing in Europe as well as the North by 1860. And, as you state, even in the South. In fact, it was the predominant reason England, and to a lesser extent France, declined to recognize the Confederacy, even though it meant a blow to their textile industry during the war.

107 posted on 03/20/2011 11:44:57 AM PDT by bcsco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: TheBigIf
"I will never believe that either Jefferson or Washington would of been on the side of the Confederacy. "

"The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions (or Resolves) were political statements drafted in 1798 and 1799, in which the Kentucky and Virginia legislatures resolved not to abide by Alien and Sedition Acts. They argued that the Acts were unconstitutional and therefore void, and in doing so, they argued for states' rights and strict constructionism of the Constitution. They were written secretly by Vice President Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, respectively.

The principles behind the resolutions became known as the "Principles of '98". Adherents argue that the individual states can judge the constitutionality of central government laws and decrees, and can refuse to enforce laws deemed unconstitutional. Such refusal was called nullification in the Kentucky Resolutions of 1799, while the Virginia Resolutions of 1798 refer to "interposition" to express the idea of the states’ right to "interpose" between the federal government and the people of the state."

"Jefferson would have been appalled at the path his political party took from the Confederate democrats up to their transistion into becoming the Progressive demcorats."

I'm sure that most southern Democrats prior to 1963 would be appalled by today's modern progressive Democrats, whose political philosophy derives from the old northeastern Republican progressives dating back at least to Teddy Roosevelt in 1912:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Party_(United_States,_1912)

108 posted on 03/20/2011 11:46:49 AM PDT by Pelham (California, Mexico's most recent colony.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: Little Pharma
Immoral is pretty self expanatory. In ths case, people who believe other people are sub-human and can be OWNED to be robbed of their sweat and talent.

You mean, like Aristotle?

ML/NJ

109 posted on 03/20/2011 11:49:12 AM PDT by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Pelham

Disagreeing with the Constitutionality of a certain law is not equivelent to agreeing with unilateral secession by a ruling party or class in any given state.

And as far as your next statement, the Confederates formed the People’s party directly after the Civil War which competed with the Progressives at first but then merged with it. Wilson the first democrat President after the Civil war filled much of cabinet with Confederate democrats as well as gave resurgence and support to their terrorist group, the KKK.

The Confederacy, the Progressive movement, the People’s party, the KKK, were ALL democrat created and run. Thoughof course just as today we see republicans who are RINOs and support Progressives the same existed back then as well.


110 posted on 03/20/2011 11:53:25 AM PDT by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj

One had whiskers, the other a beard.


111 posted on 03/20/2011 11:57:29 AM PDT by InvisibleChurch (If your PC is running slowly then it will be easy to catch.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheBigIf
Lincoln had as his purpose to uphold the Constitution

You see, the biggest problem that this Yankee has with Lincoln is that he destroyed the government left to us by Jefferson and Madison. In fact I never really understood what a slimeball Lincoln was because the Civil War era wasn't of much interest to me until I sought to learn how it all fell apart. James McPherson quotes a Harvard professor writing in 1869 as saying, "It is as if I am no longer living in the country of my birth." (may not be a precise quote as I am doing this from memory) This was a guy whose life was essentially untouched by the war, or so one would have thought. What ever do you think this professor had in mind?

ML/NJ

112 posted on 03/20/2011 12:00:34 PM PDT by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: Pelham

Just to elaborate onn your first point abit more.

Nullification of a federal law, or the creation of a Constitutional crisis, is a legitimate recourse. Yet the Confederates had no regard for the COnstitution at all and through secession deemed to remove a state(s) from under it’s law completely without any recourse unnder the rule of law.

I fully support a state being able to challenge the Constitutionality of federal acts or laws but I do not at all support the ridiculous notion of ‘unilateral secession’ as being some sort of right.

Why not allow individuals to claim unilateral secession then as well? A person could just decide that there land is no longer under the juridiction of the laws of the United States and our Constitution.

It is ridiculous to me that there is anyone here at FR supporting such a notion.


113 posted on 03/20/2011 12:02:02 PM PDT by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: TheBigIf
Lincoln was elected and was sworn an oath to protect the United States Constitution from ALL enemies both foreign and domestic. The Confederates were determined to defy the Constitution and disregard it. They also attacked the United States forces as well.

See my post at #112 about "defending" the Constitution.

About the Confederates attacking the North see #70. The Southerners had no designs upon the Northern States and it is a gross misrepresentation to suggest otherwise.

ML/NJ

114 posted on 03/20/2011 12:06:29 PM PDT by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj

I see it completely the opposite way.

I believe it is the Confederate democrats who have destroyed the Consitution they fought to secede from back then. If they loved the Constitution formed by the Founders so much then why did they just want to pronounce that it wasn’t their Constitution anymore and fight for that right? Why not work towards using the process provided by the Founders to uplift this nation? Instead they chose to rebel and fight a Civil war. They never stopped rebelling either after the Civil war and just went on to new tactics as the Progressive democrats.

I see Lincoln as having to fight a war in order to try and preserve the great government created by our Founders.

I see the Confederate democrats as traitors who sought to undermine the great Founding of this nation.


115 posted on 03/20/2011 12:07:45 PM PDT by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj

Yet the Confederates did attack United States forces. Their designs were clear in that they were determined to disregard the Constitution and hold any United States citizen in their state enslaved.

The Confederates were trying to seceded from the Constitution unilaterally without any regard for the rule of law. They also fired upon U.S. forces.


116 posted on 03/20/2011 12:13:18 PM PDT by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: TheBigIf
I see it completely the opposite way.

You might. But you would not be correct.

Several years ago when I sat in on a three hour Politics of the Civil War class (Great Class!) at an Ivy, I made the statement during the discussion that I have made here: that Lincoln destroyed the government bequeathed to us by Jefferson and Madison. The professor mostly let it go during the class. But during a private 20 minute discussion afterward he confided that he could not write the things I was saying during the class and remain part of the Civil War Academic Community. About Lincoln destroying the government, his comment was, "We, he had help." We agreed that maybe Wilson and FDR did help a little, but that both probably took their cues from Lincoln.

ML/NJ

117 posted on 03/20/2011 12:21:06 PM PDT by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Little Pharma

>>Immoral is pretty self expanatory. In ths case, people who believe other people are sub-human and can be OWNED to be robbed of their sweat and talent.<<

Yes, life was tough in those times. Are you aware that many slaves went back to the plantation after the war to work for the very same man who once “owned” them?

I know that you are aware that historians say that most African-Iraqis arrived as slaves from East Africa as part of the Arab slave trade starting about 1400 years ago.

Slavery was not started by Confederates, no, the wonderful Middle Eastern Muslims take that honor.

You must be quite the man determining what was moral and what was not. Do close friends call you Little Jesus?


118 posted on 03/20/2011 12:22:58 PM PDT by B4Ranch (Do NOT remain seated until this ride comes to a full and complete stop! We're going the wrong way!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj
I've never seen this asserted before. Do you have a reference? I don't even see when they might have had an opportunity to own slaves.

Don't get your hopes up.

119 posted on 03/20/2011 12:29:51 PM PDT by K-Stater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: TheBigIf

“The Confederacy, the Progressive movement, the People’s party, the KKK, were ALL democrat created and run.”

The Progressive Party, aka known as the Bull Moose Party, formed out of a split within the GOP in 1912 and ran Teddy Roosevelt as its candidate. It ran against both Democrat Woodrow Wilson and Republican William Howard Taft.

‘The Civil War in the United States’ is a collection of contemporaneous essays by a couple of English journalists, one Karl Marx and Frederick Engels. They certainly thought that the Civil War was a progressive affair, the progressive side being Lincoln and the Union against the reactionary conservatives of the south. I have a copy but I believe the entire book can be found on the internet for those interested in the history of “progressive” political theory.

“Wilson the first democrat President after the Civil war filled much of cabinet with Confederate democrats”

I’d be curious to learn who these Confederate Democrats were who you think filled Wilson’s cabinet.

McAdoo of New York at Treasury? McReynolds of New York, attorney general? Lindley M. Garrison, New Jersey, at the War Dept? Wilson of Pennsylvania at Labor? Surely there must have been someone who flew the Stars and Bars, so help us find him!

And worse, you mean poor old Grover Cleveland, with his two non-consecutive terms as President, doesn’t count? Cleveland, elected in both 1884 and 1892, was a ‘Bourbon Democrat’, which was about as far from a progressive as you can get.


120 posted on 03/20/2011 12:38:33 PM PDT by Pelham (California, Mexico's most recent colony.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj
We are and were a constitutional republic. We had civil liberties, the rule of law, and the right to vote. We could remove officials and administrations at the ballot box. We could petition for redress grievances and have our elected officials deal with our wishes or risk being thrown out of office. None of that was true of Libyans under Qaddafi's rule.

Unilateral secession is an idea that doesn't work. It doesn't work because terms of separation have to be worked out and you can't have a state or a collection of states asserting their independence and asking the rest of the country to be contented with whatever the secessionists can't grab and take with them. The Constitution established the federal government to deal with national questions and the separation of a state or the sundering of the union is a national question, to be resolved at the federal level in accordance with the supremacy clause of the Constitution.

I don't get why this was such a big thing -- why secessionists couldn't hash things out in Congress or a constitutional convention, why they wanted to just up and leave, taking whatever they wanted with them. I suspect part of it was that they were just fed up, and part of it was that they wanted a panic, a crisis situation when all the slaveowning states would leave the union, rather than a reasoned, deliberative process involving discussion, debate, and consensus-building.

Unilateral secession was likely to mean war. People saw that in 1860 and earlier. That's why they tried so hard to work out compromises. Lincoln reacted more or less as any president worth anything would react. No head of government was going to simply roll over and give the secessionists everything they wanted, and they should have realized that.

121 posted on 03/20/2011 12:40:14 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: K-Stater
Incredible. There was not a single accurate statement in that entire paragraph. Usually you all manage to have at least one, even by accident. I think that qualifies you for entry in the League of the South Hall of Fame.

Well, that depends on what "the abloishment of slavary" means ...

122 posted on 03/20/2011 12:48:16 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch

I know that you are aware that historians say that most African-Iraqis arrived as slaves from East Africa as part of the Arab slave trade starting about 1400 years ago.

Slavery was not started by Confederates, no, the wonderful Middle Eastern Muslims take that honor.
_____________________

Wow, now I’m informed. Robert E. Lee, Jefferson David, all the confederates were ignorant dupes for the Islamocists. Sort of “Useful Idiots” for the Islamo-facists.

In that light. Lincoln and the heroic military of the Union were even more important national heroes then I had realized.

FR can be so educational.


123 posted on 03/20/2011 1:04:02 PM PDT by Little Pharma
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj

But I am correct and you are wrong.

Lincoln fought to preserve the Constitution and the Confederate democrats fought to destroy it and still do through their legacy of Wilson and FDR and up till today.


124 posted on 03/20/2011 1:44:10 PM PDT by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj

Are you one of them there “community organizers” who like to stir the pot and say “why don’t you and him have a fight” while you duck and run?

JC


125 posted on 03/20/2011 2:03:20 PM PDT by cracker45 (I don't believe in coincidences!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pelham

It is well known about Wilson’s allegiance to the Confederates and it is also well known that the birth of the Progressive movement contained elements that originated frmom both the republican and democrat party.

It was though the democrats (Confederates) who brought about the full blown birth of the Progressive moevement with the Wilson Presidency.

Here is a quick blurb by Jonah Glodberg who has studied much of this:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/182307/obama-confederacy-and-woodrow-wilson/jonah-goldberg

There is a lot of history of the alliances between the Progressive movement and the Confederate movement. The Poeple’s party (a Confederate democrat movement) endorsed Woodrow Wilson and of course it is well known that Wilson endorsed another Confederate movement (the KKK).

In many ways it was the Confederate democrats who were very simliat to Qaddafi being that they wanted power at all costs. Secession was an attempt to throw away the Constitution and to rule supreme over their slaves. The Confederates even formed terrorist groups such as the KKK such as Qaddafi uses terrorism for the same means to hold power.

Both the Confederates and the Progressive democrats that followed shortly after supported this type of disregard for the rule of law and the use of terrorism.

The Lost Causers could deny all of this if they want but the truth will catch up to them and they will be exposed. They are the birth of all of the anti-Constitution politics that we see in America today. The Confederate democrats were the birth of today’s Progressive democrat party.


126 posted on 03/20/2011 2:06:18 PM PDT by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: omegadawn
Jeffferson Davis ,President of the Confederacy was anti-slavary

False, he owned more than 100.

and the southern congress was already holding hearing on the abloishment of slavary when Lincoln attacked.

Not that I'm aware of. Understandably, they had other things on their minds.

Davis owned no slaves(adopted a young black man as his son).

There is no documentation Davis ever adopted Jim Limber. Seems to not have spent much thought on him after the war. More likely he was brought into the family as a playmate for their son of the same age, much as one might "adopt" a puppy.

Neither did General Lee and the rest of the Confederate Generals

Lee may not have owned slaves but did administer an estate with many. Wade Hampton, for one example, owned the most slaves in SC and possibly in the entire country.

whereas almost all of the Northern Generals owned slaves.

Would appreciate a statistical analysis to support such an idiotic statement.

Lincoln was a slave owner. Liberal historians try hide this by saying that the slaves were his wife's not his..

Various members of Mary's family owned numbers of slaves. Some of these may at times have been assigned to work for Mary on a temporary basis. I know of no evidence she, or certainly Lincoln, ever held title to slaves.

127 posted on 03/20/2011 2:17:30 PM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: southernsunshine

You are right about the deportation. Few whites, north or south saw blacks as any semblance of equals. The normal practice was to return escaped slaves to the south. A “free state” mostly meant that a slave could become free if someone bought his way out, not that he was automatically free once he got there.

We know little of historical motives, and have been taught mostly BS.


128 posted on 03/20/2011 2:35:36 PM PDT by tickmeister (tickmeister)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: TheBigIf
The Civil war was fought over money, specifically taxes. Every war is fought over money when you get right down to it.

What is the Tea Party about? Yes, money, more specifically, taxes. Are they rebelling against the Establishment? Yes and if we don't start seeing some changes toward following the Constitution. Don't be surprised if we might just see a war about it. I hope not but I won't be surprised if we do.

Have you ever heard of 70 year old John Burns, the Gettysburg civilian who fought in the Civil war? He's one of my heroes because he showed everyone that even an old man can fight back for what he believes in. There's a full-length biography that sorts out fact from fiction, covering how he was wounded, captured and survived to become a national celebrity; how he received a personal thanks from Abraham Lincoln; how Congress passed a special act granting him a pension; and much more.

129 posted on 03/20/2011 2:44:56 PM PDT by B4Ranch (Do NOT remain seated until this ride comes to a full and complete stop! We're going the wrong way!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
Yes, and the one issue Lincoln wouldn't compromise on was the expansion of slavery, which is what he was LEGALLY elected to do.

But nice attempt to drop the historical context.

130 posted on 03/20/2011 4:59:53 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration (When the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn (Pr.29:2))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

History is wrote by the victor, it does not necessarily mean that it is 100% true.


131 posted on 03/20/2011 5:44:06 PM PDT by omegadawn (qualified)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: omegadawn

Since history is written by the victors, it is therefore appropriate for the losers to make things up without any evidence whatsoever. < / sarcasm >


132 posted on 03/20/2011 5:45:51 PM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
a good example of how history is wrote by the victors. When the Northern army was processing black(soldiers)prisoners after they surrendered they were listed only as servants and cooks. For the most part they were not allowed to be listed as soldiers. Approximately 60-80 thousand blacks served in the Confederate army. Several years ago the Smithsonian had a display on African Americans that served during the civil war, Photos of African Americans that served in the Confederate army were not accepted.
133 posted on 03/20/2011 5:58:39 PM PDT by omegadawn (qualified)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: omegadawn
a good example of how history is wrote by the victors

Well let's get back to your history for a moment. Can you list, oh, five Union generals who were slave owners? Since you said that virtually all of them were then that shouldn't be hard to do. Feel free to list more if you like.

134 posted on 03/20/2011 6:03:46 PM PDT by K-Stater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: omegadawn

In 1864, Cleburne, one of the better southern generals, suggested freeing and arming the slaves. The army and government went nuts, and he never was promoted further, despite the desperate need for good officers. Davis went so far as to send a personal envoy to the western army to make sure the rot hadn’t spread.

Shelby Foote, not exactly an example of a pro-Northern historian, has an interesting discussion of how CSA congressmen fought bitterly against the idea of arming blacks as soldiers - in spring 1865!

They gave in only when RE Lee appealed personally to the Congress. Only a few blacks were inducted and only a few were armed and started training before the war ended.

Many blacks indeed served in the southern armies. Most of them served in exactly the same way as the horses. As chattel used by their owners as they saw fit, not at their own volition. It is entirely possible some would have voluntarily fought for the CSA, but they weren’t given that choice, as they weren’t given any others in their lives.


135 posted on 03/20/2011 6:11:02 PM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj

Easy. Qaddafi could get away with telling his lady that her ass looked fat.


136 posted on 03/20/2011 6:24:21 PM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (~"This is what happens when you find a stranger in the Amber Lamps !"~~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: K-Stater

Hi Non! Representing the Redlegs on tonight’s thread?


137 posted on 03/20/2011 7:12:29 PM PDT by stainlessbanner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

Former slaves did volunteer and actually raise money to support their units and the cause. It’s well documented.


138 posted on 03/20/2011 7:14:49 PM PDT by stainlessbanner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: Pelham

My God, you’ve got some tall boots (and probably a sturdy shovel), old friend. Thank you for making reference to the so-called Progressive/Communist involvement with regard to the War of Northern Aggression. Keep making steaks out of those old sacred cows, Pelham.


139 posted on 03/20/2011 8:58:48 PM PDT by Das Outsider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: TheBigIf

At a certain point it becomes pointless to present facts to the invincibly ignorant. So I’ll spare myself the effort and let you go blissfully onward.


140 posted on 03/20/2011 10:32:39 PM PDT by Pelham (California, Mexico's most recent colony.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Pelham

Spoken as a means to cover up the fact that you gave no facts.

The grandfather of the democrat party Progressive movement was aligned with the Confederate democrats who lost their cause to do away with the Constitution.

Wilson himself supported the terrorist wing of the Confederates (the KKK) and also was the first President to denounce the Founders of this nation.

Lost Causers here at FR can argue this point but eventually they will be completely exposed as to the facts.

It has been this continual anti-Constitution push by first the Confederates and now the Progressives that has been the battle for any true conservative to fight against.

It amazes me that any Lost Causer could try to claim that the Confederate democrats were aligned with the Founders considering that they wanted to do away with the Constitution. They wanted to secede from it by whim of their political power over a state.

I guess then they would go blissfully onward and the United States would be no more?

Yes go ahead spare yourself. Your calling me ignorant is exactly the only point you wanted to make anyway. Your post was pointless.


141 posted on 03/20/2011 10:51:59 PM PDT by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: TheBigIf

No, spoken as someone who tires of dealing with the invincibly ignorant, you in particular.


142 posted on 03/20/2011 11:16:09 PM PDT by Pelham (Islam, mortal enemy of the free world)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: TheBigIf
Something for you to reflect upon:

"The invincible ignorance fallacy is a deductive fallacy of circularity where the person in question simply ignores any evidence given. It is not so much a fallacious tactic in argument as it is a refusal to argue in the proper sense of the word, the method instead being to make assertions with no consideration of objections."

143 posted on 03/20/2011 11:24:14 PM PDT by Pelham (Islam, mortal enemy of the free world)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: Pelham

So just another repeat of a post that says nothing by you. “You are ignorant.” That is your response.

You fit in well with the mindset that disregards the rule of law and just resorts to corruption and crime.

The Confederate democrats wanted to disregard the rule of law and failed. The Progressive democrats want to do the same by other means.

You just want to sit back and call others ignorant. Well good for you. I guess that you would feel better living in some other country other then the United States being you are so upset over it not being defeated by the KKK democrats of the Confederacy.


144 posted on 03/20/2011 11:27:08 PM PDT by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: Pelham

Actually it something for you to reflect upon and not me.


145 posted on 03/20/2011 11:28:17 PM PDT by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj

I would say that Muamar Qaddafi and Abraham Lincoln were opposites.

While Qaddafi fights to preserve the same type of government that the Confederate democrats sought, one that enshrined slavery, one that disregarded the rule of law and was ruled by the whim of those with power....

Lincoln on the other hand sought to preserve a true democratic republic whereas the rule of law was respected and all were created equal as intended by our Founders.

Linoln was by no means perfect and was thrust into a position of great challenges but he was a great man and a great President of this nation for his courage facing a traitorous group of partisan rebels who sought to do away with the Constitution that he had sworn to protect.


146 posted on 03/20/2011 11:36:25 PM PDT by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheBigIf

No, not at all. I’m quite experienced at conducting logical debates and I know better than to waste time with someone who doesn’t. The points in post 120 still stand. You failed to address them and that’s sufficient for me.


147 posted on 03/20/2011 11:47:54 PM PDT by Pelham (Islam, mortal enemy of the free world)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: Pelham

The points in post 120? What points?

You simply imply that the Progreesive movement as a political ideology was not confined to only democrats but also had republican support.

Even today though the Progressve movement gets republican support. So what point are you making.

It is well known ttoday and from the beginning that the Progressive movcement is championed by the democrat party.

You have never addressed the fact that Wilson also a democrat (just as the Confederates were democrats) also championed their terrorist wing (the KKK) and also historically was endorsed by the Confederate’s People’s party.

Wilson was not anti-Confederate by a long shot. He was not of the party of Lincoln and he was supportive of the Confederates. You have given no facts otherwise at all.


148 posted on 03/20/2011 11:55:34 PM PDT by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: dagogo redux

‘some of our worst Amendments’

It is the 13th that really gets to you guys.


149 posted on 03/21/2011 12:30:22 AM PDT by Lucius Cornelius Sulla (Liberty and Union, Now and Forever, One and Inseparable -- Daniel Webster)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch

‘Slavery was not started by Confederates, no, the wonderful Middle Eastern Muslims take that honor.’

Never heard of the Roman Empire the Alexandrian Empire, the Persian, Assyrian, Chinese, Japanese, or Egyptian Empires, all of which had slaves, along with most other countries in history. The Muslims had a lot to do with the rise of Black African slavery of course.


150 posted on 03/21/2011 12:45:10 AM PDT by Lucius Cornelius Sulla (Liberty and Union, Now and Forever, One and Inseparable -- Daniel Webster)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-248 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson