Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Spielberg's Lincoln Movie
Personal writing | November 16, 2012 | Garland Favorito

Posted on 11/16/2012 7:27:33 AM PST by BobNative

New Movie Propagates Lincoln Historical Myths

If you are planning to see the new, Steven Spielberg directed, Lincoln movie you might want to invest in an accurate history book instead. While it is successfully dramatic, the movie rehashes several 150 year old myths about the Lincoln presidency and America’s most horrible war. First, to the movie’s credit, the script avoids a key, blatant lie that is currently being taught throughout American public schools today. The script focuses correctly on explaining how slaves were freed by the 13th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, not the Emancipation Proclamation. Abraham Lincoln’s proclamation did not apply to any northern states. It only applied to southern territory that was not under control of the Union. Therefore, it was ignored by the Confederacy too. The original proclamation of September 22, 1862, even stated that all southern states could keep their slaves if they returned to the Union by January 1, 1863.

LINCOLN AND SLAVERY: Although properly focused, the movie misleads its audience into believing that Abraham Lincoln was consumed with the thought of freeing slaves. In reality, Lincoln was a white segregationist from Illinois, whose state Constitution had banned permanent black residents since 1848. Lincoln stated repeatedly in his 1861 inaugural address, his 1862 Horace Greely letter and other times during and before the war that his only intent was to “preserve the union” not free slaves. As a lawyer, Lincoln actually represented Robert Matson, a slave owner who wanted his part-time seasonal slaves returned to him. In 1847, Mr. Lincoln took his case all the way to the Illinois Supreme Court where he lost. Throughout his presidency, Lincoln made repeated attempts to colonize all African Americans beginning in 1862 with his Commissioner of Emigration, James Mitchell, the former leader of the American Colonization Society. In April of 1865, well after Congress passed the 13th Amendment and just before his death, Mr. Lincoln was still discussing his colonization plans with Union Army General, Benjamin Butler.

LINCOLN AND THE WAR: The movie aptly shows graphic scenes depicting some of the many horrendous battles in the appalling war against Southern independence where 620,000 Americans died, almost as many Americans killed as in all other wars combined. But the script serves to conceal Lincoln’s role in instigating the war. Lincoln refused to meet with Confederate commissioners who came to Washington to negotiate a peaceful separation in February of 1861. He did not seek a constitutionally required declaration of war from Congress before initiating the war or petition the U.S. Supreme Court for a ruling as to the legality of secession according to the rights of the states under the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. He ignored the vast majority opinion of his own cabinet and decided to invade Virginia on July 21, 1861 over objections of his military commanders, Generals Winfield Scott and Irwin McDowell. At that time, the Union had never suffered a single casualty from the Confederate military, which had committed no hostilities against the Union for over three months prior to the invasion. The script tends to ignore these well established, largely suppressed facts and imply that Mr. Lincoln had no choice but war.

CAUSES OF LINCOLN’S WAR: The script also tends to deceive the audience into believing that slavery was the major cause of the war. It avoids the issues of Constitutional rights that Jefferson Davis so frequently wrote about and the excessive tariffs that caused South Carolina to initially threaten to secede 30 years earlier. Given that just over 15% of southerners owned slaves, it should be obvious that 85% of southerners were not fighting for the right of the minority 15% to own slaves. Although northern soldiers fought to preserve the union as Lincoln demanded, southern concerns about Constitutional rights and excessive taxation were proven to be justified. After southerners elected state representatives, who voted democratically to secede and unanimously elected Jefferson Davis as their President, they were then forced to fight to protect their homes, families and property from continual invasions. Today, almost all of us are victims of the uncontrollable federal government and taxing excesses that were spawned by President Lincoln’s war.

LINCOLN AND THE PEOPLE: The script further misleads the audience into believing that Lincoln was a beloved populist although with 39.8% of the vote, he was the most unpopular president ever elected. In one scene, Sally Fields, who plays Mary Todd Lincoln, remarks that: “No one has ever been loved so much by the people…” She obviously was not referring to southerners since they were victimized by death and destruction from dozens of invasions. She also could not have been referring to the 30,000 or so northerners who were imprisoned without trial for opposing the invasion of the south. Among them, 30 Maryland legislators were imprisoned to keep the state from voting to secede and thus preventing the war by encircling Washington D.C. with Confederate states. Hundreds of newspaper editors, publishers and citizens were also imprisoned for publicly opposing the invasion. Imprisoned notables include Frances Key Howard, grandson of star spangled banner author, Francis Scott Key and George Armistead Appleton, grandson of Major George Armistead, who commanded Fort McHenry during the key victory in the war of 1812.

LINCOLN AND HUMANITY: The movie theme seems to purposely exaggerate Abraham Lincoln’s concern for slaves to falsely portray him as a great humanitarian. In another dramatic scene, Daniel Day Lewis, who plays Lincoln, asks: “Shall we stop this bleeding?” This line is acutely ironic since it was Lincoln who initiated the bleeding for millions of Americans. Mr. Lincoln personally directed key activities of the Union Army that repeatedly attacked civilian populations. The army burned hundreds of homes in South Carolina, destroyed dozens of farms and killed thousands of head of cattle in the Shenandoah Valley, burned dozens of cities and towns across Georgia, pillaged civilian homes in Fredricksburg, Virginia, and fired cannon shells into the towns of Vicksburg, Mississippi and Petersburg, Virginia for months. These unprecedented atrocities against American citizens are documented in “War Crimes Against Southern Civilians” by Walter Brian Cisco.

CONCLUSION: The movie leaves a burning question as to why Steven Spielberg chose to continue the historical glorification of Abraham Lincoln while covering up the horrible truths about his administration and concealing the source of the greatest atrocities ever committed against American citizens. The real facts must have been uncovered given the historical research that was performed. Did Mr. Spielberg’s lust for money and a “feel good” plot far outweigh his desire to present the full truth? We may never know the answer to such questions. In the meantime, if you are simply looking for dramatic entertainment that will make you comfortable by filling your Kool-Aid cup with propaganda, this movie might be for you. If, on the other hand, you expect any historical documentary to inform you accurately about past events, then your admission fee would be better spent on obtaining an accurate historical education of the Lincoln administration by reading a book such as Professor Thomas DiLorenzo’s The Real Lincoln.

Garland Favorito

PERMISSION TO POST AND REPRINT GRANTED


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: despot; dishonestabe; dixie; hollywood; lincoln; lyinglincoln; moviereview; presidents; spielberg; tyrant; vanity; warcriminal; weallbeslavesnow
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-119 next last

1 posted on 11/16/2012 7:27:34 AM PST by BobNative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: BobNative

Presidents from Illinois seem to suck.


2 posted on 11/16/2012 7:31:19 AM PST by jospehm20
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jospehm20

Including Reagan?


3 posted on 11/16/2012 7:41:03 AM PST by CrazyIvan (Obama's birth certificate was found stapled to Soros's receipt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: BobNative

Lincoln worship annoys me to no end!

the man was a monster who deserved far worse than he got.


4 posted on 11/16/2012 7:45:03 AM PST by TexasFreeper2009 (Obama lied .. the economy died.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CrazyIvan
Including Reagan?
You mean the one who raised taxes a few times AND signed an Amnesty bill?
5 posted on 11/16/2012 7:48:58 AM PST by oh8eleven (RVN '67-'68)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: BobNative

Just about every word except “and” and “the” in this so-called “review” is false, bad history, bad interpretation of historical facts, and otherwise bogus.


6 posted on 11/16/2012 7:53:12 AM PST by LS ('Castles made of sand, fall in the sea . . . eventually.' Hendrix)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BobNative
"The script also tends to deceive the audience into believing that slavery was the major cause of the war"

I'm sorry, but anyone that cannot recognize that slavery was the only reason for the civil war is simply deluding themselves.

Yes, yes, state's rights, industrial tarriffs, property rights, the 10th amandment, etc etc; but every single arguement resolved down to slavery and the economics built upon it.

It was only the war that ended the evil of slavery and it was Linclon that made certain that slavery was ended.

Thank God for Abraham Lincoln.

7 posted on 11/16/2012 7:54:04 AM PST by Pietro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BobNative

Regarding “causes of the war”, there was plenty of hypocrisy on both sides. Slavery was certainly a major factor as stated in a number of the sothern states own declarations.

Moreover, there was political support in the south to forcibly annex places like Cuba in odrer to get more pro-slavery senators. Forcible annexation and allowance of secession seem to be mutually exclusive to me.

That said, I believe that the individual states retained enough sovereignty to secede, regardless of the consistency or value of their underlying reasons. This should have been addressed in the original Constitution.


8 posted on 11/16/2012 7:54:13 AM PST by Dr. Sivana (There is no salvation in politics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: oh8eleven

True. I’d still trade Bammy for him in a hearbeat.


9 posted on 11/16/2012 7:56:29 AM PST by CrazyIvan (Obama's birth certificate was found stapled to Soros's receipt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: BobNative

Disingenuous.
South Carolinas proclamation of secession clearly stated the reason to be the constitutional right to slavery. Article IV. And specifically the Northern states disinclination to enforce it.
The South ultimately fought because of slavery, and that alone.
Anything else is spinning afterwards.
Why the North fought is another matter.


10 posted on 11/16/2012 7:56:36 AM PST by buwaya
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BobNative

Disingenuous.
South Carolinas proclamation of secession clearly stated the reason to be the constitutional right to slavery. Article IV. And specifically the Northern states disinclination to enforce it.
The South ultimately fought because of slavery, and that alone.
Anything else is spinning afterwards.
Why the North fought is another matter.


11 posted on 11/16/2012 7:56:41 AM PST by buwaya
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TexasFreeper2009; windcliff; stylecouncilor

I’m torn by what I believe was good in Lincoln, and my admiration for the Southern spirit of independence.


12 posted on 11/16/2012 7:59:18 AM PST by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Pietro

Didn’t South Carolina explicitly state they were seceding from the union because of slavery?


13 posted on 11/16/2012 8:05:17 AM PST by frogjerk (Obama Claus is coming to town!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: onedoug

Republicans keep bragging about being the party of Lincoln. Well Lincoln was the LIBERAL of his time, the Democrats were the Conservatives. Why do you think the south held on to the Democrats until the 70’s? The democrats finally got SO liberal the old blue dogs couldn’t take it any more.


14 posted on 11/16/2012 8:05:50 AM PST by conservaterian (NOW can we have a conservative candidate?????)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: BobNative
bttt...author addresses some interesting points.
Myopic Lincoln-worship crowd won't like.
15 posted on 11/16/2012 8:05:54 AM PST by stainlessbanner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: onedoug

If you are torn between the principles of a Federal Gov’t and States’ rights you are a true American. That’s what the US is all about!


16 posted on 11/16/2012 8:06:50 AM PST by what's up
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: LS
Just about every word except “and” and “the” in this so-called “review” is false...and otherwise bogus.

So Lincoln never represented Robert Matson?

17 posted on 11/16/2012 8:07:50 AM PST by Michael.SF. (Obama Lied, Stevens died.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: BobNative
..two of my great-grandfathers fought for the Confederacy. One was a POW. I have deep southern roots and love the South.

Having said that I think true history points to Lincoln as being the greatest president in our history...

18 posted on 11/16/2012 8:13:18 AM PST by WalterSkinner ( In Memory of My Father--WWII Vet and Patriot 1926-2007)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pietro

You realize the exact same argument would have been made for King George had England won the revolution right?.

I don’t deny that slavery was the main reason behind secession but to claim men can be forced into a “Union” under threat of death or imprisonment? That’s an argument of oppression. Why not support extortion while you’re at it?


19 posted on 11/16/2012 8:13:30 AM PST by DwFry (Baby Boomers Killed Western Civilization!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: DwFry
so would have preferred slavery remained in place.

You are then, in fact, pro-slavery.

Feel free to dress that up w/ whatever justifications make you feel better.

20 posted on 11/16/2012 8:18:35 AM PST by Pietro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: LS
Other than a minor quibble with some inconsequential dialogue, Medved thought the film was great and relatively accurate.
21 posted on 11/16/2012 8:25:26 AM PST by Tex-Con-Man (<-------currently working through post-election anger issues.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: BobNative

“Lincoln refused to meet with Confederate commissioners who came to Washington to negotiate a peaceful separation in February of 1861.”

But then he had no more authority to negotiate a peaceful separation than the Obama administration has to “Peacefully grant the State of...to withdraw from the United States of America and create its own NEW government” in accord with the various petitions we read about.

“He did not seek a constitutionally required declaration of war...”

Why would a declaration of war be constitutionally required? If they were not acknowledging the right to secede, it would be a matter of an internal insurrection, not an external threat. “The Conch Republic is a micronation declared as a tongue-in-cheek secession of the city of Key West, Florida from the United States on April 23, 1982.” If somebody really wanted to make an issue of it, would Congress have to declare war against the Conch Republic just because they say they are a nation, or could Florida just send in the cops/national guard?


22 posted on 11/16/2012 8:25:47 AM PST by KrisKrinkle (Blessed be those who know the depth and breadth of their ignorance. Cursed be those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BobNative
For the very reasons stated in this article, I will NOT see this movie........and will discourage as many as I can to do the same.
23 posted on 11/16/2012 8:28:01 AM PST by annieokie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: frogjerk

Yes indeed, the sole argument stated as a cause for complaint in South Carolinas declaration was the conflict about Article IV of the Constitution, and it was cited by several other states too; and slavery was the stated issue across all the seceding states even where the constitutional point of Article IV was not cited.


24 posted on 11/16/2012 8:28:39 AM PST by buwaya
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: frogjerk

The 2nd time they did. During the Nullification Crisis of 1830 it wasn’t the issue. The Nullification crisis was an attempt by South Carolina to refuse the laws of the National Government due to excessive tariffs by threatening secession. Tariffs were the continuing, burning, simmering, underlying issue. The slavery issue, to the South, was the ‘straw that broke the camel’s back’ by 1860.


25 posted on 11/16/2012 8:29:25 AM PST by yadent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Pietro

Yes, I either support the freedom to choose you own political offiliations or I support slavery......*roll eyes*

You’re running on emotion, not logic and reason.


26 posted on 11/16/2012 8:30:40 AM PST by DwFry (Baby Boomers Killed Western Civilization!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: annieokie

The arguments in this review are mostly silly.

The best reason not to see it is because it was made by Spielberg.


27 posted on 11/16/2012 8:31:13 AM PST by buwaya
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Michael.SF.

John Adams represented the British soldiers after the Boston Massacre. He was a stealth Royalist!


28 posted on 11/16/2012 8:33:55 AM PST by SoCal Pubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Pietro
Amen!

Have you ever considered the words of the Battle Hymn of the Republic?
As He died to make men holy, let US die to make men free

Union soldiers were fully aware they were fighting to end slavery. Historical revisionism is irrelevant.

29 posted on 11/16/2012 8:37:22 AM PST by stormhill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: LS

And yet you are apparently totally at a loss to point out any of the imagined fallacies.

Typical.


30 posted on 11/16/2012 8:39:49 AM PST by Lee'sGhost (Johnny Rico picked the wrong girl!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: buwaya

Glad you preceded your comment with an accurate disclaimer about it.

You can find documentation to support “slavery was the cause” and you can find it to support the opposite. As the piece says, for 85 percent of Southerners it makes no sense that they were fight for slavery.

This comment, however, is spot on, and a point I have made for years.

“Today, almost all of us are victims of the uncontrollable federal government and taxing excesses that were spawned by President Lincoln’s war.”

Lincoln decided the question about states rights vs powerful central government. We are now reaping the rewards via Obama and the destruction of the U.S.

Thanks.


31 posted on 11/16/2012 8:44:52 AM PST by Lee'sGhost (Johnny Rico picked the wrong girl!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: conservaterian
Well Lincoln was the LIBERAL of his time, the Democrats were the Conservatives

Bushwa!

That's almost as misleading as calling Nazis "Right wingers"
Democrats were and are liberals. Self determination and independence are and have always been Conservative principles. The will to keep people in plantations clearly militate against that.

32 posted on 11/16/2012 8:46:12 AM PST by stormhill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: jospehm20

bttt


33 posted on 11/16/2012 8:49:19 AM PST by A Cyrenian (Timothy Geithner - proving TurboTax is not idiot proof.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: BobNative
You are incorrect and seemed to have believed some propaganda yourself. Lincoln was indeed consumed with freeing the slaves and the book, “ Father Abraham” has some amazing real quotes of the political debates as he was running for senate and president. Lincoln was also crafty and wise as a serpent, as the bible talks about. He knew what to say at times in order to get the cancer removed from America, because he knew that it was expansionary by it's nature and would eventually ruin our nation.
34 posted on 11/16/2012 8:51:06 AM PST by fabian (" And a new day will dawn for those who stand long, and the forests will echo in laughter")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LS

you are right. This author and freeper has believed the lefts lies about Lincoln not being so noble.


35 posted on 11/16/2012 8:52:35 AM PST by fabian (" And a new day will dawn for those who stand long, and the forests will echo in laughter")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: DwFry

LOL! That was the exact thought I had.

Have you noticed how otherwise good FReepers who are also Lincoln lovers default to libtard-type “reasoning” when it comes to these discussions?


36 posted on 11/16/2012 8:52:39 AM PST by Lee'sGhost (Johnny Rico picked the wrong girl!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: buwaya
The arguments in this review are mostly silly.""""....

NO, the arguments in this review are TRUTH....., reason not to see it. Prior to the movie coming out, I knew it would be filled with some NONinformation.......failure to disclose.

37 posted on 11/16/2012 8:53:19 AM PST by annieokie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: BobNative

Spielberg has a tin ear for history. “Amistad” was a colossal artistic and commercial failure. And though it’s unpopular to say, absent the magnificent first twenty minutes of “Saving Private Ryan,” that film stinks up France.

“Lincoln” is a hit with the critics, but once the castor oil fans dutifully see it opening weekend, along with a bunch of school kids forced to watch it so they can write their “themes,” no one will pay to see it.


38 posted on 11/16/2012 8:54:58 AM PST by Blue Ink
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blue Ink

BTW, it did officially “open” — in eleven hand-picked theaters — and sold out. Big deal.

Watch it drop like the stock market when it plays in the multiplex in the mall.


39 posted on 11/16/2012 8:57:04 AM PST by Blue Ink
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: buwaya
The best reason not to see it is because it was made by Spielberg.

You are absolutely correct. ALL Conservatives should not see this or any film made by Obama sycophants.

40 posted on 11/16/2012 8:58:55 AM PST by sand88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Lee'sGhost

The man has written US history books that have wound up on the NYT bestseller lists. He is highly thought of here on these boards and acknowledged to be one of the nation’s best conservative historians. Although I agree that more in depth discussion is in order I think his opinion should not be dismissed lightly. What, pray tell, are your qualifications?


41 posted on 11/16/2012 8:59:15 AM PST by Scoutdad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: frogjerk; buwaya

South Carolina

AN ORDINANCE to dissolve the union between the State of South Carolina and other States united with her under the compact entitled “The Constitution of the United States of America.”

We, the people of the State of South Carolina, in convention assembled, do declare and ordain, and it is hereby declared and ordained, That the ordinance adopted by us in convention on the twenty-third day of May, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight, whereby the Constitution of the United States of America was ratified, and also all acts and parts of acts of the General Assembly of this State ratifying amendments of the said Constitution, are hereby repealed; and that the union now subsisting between South Carolina and other States, under the name of the “United States of America,” is hereby dissolved.

Done at Charleston the twentieth day of December, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty.

Source: Official Records, Ser. IV, vol. 1, p. 1.


42 posted on 11/16/2012 8:59:26 AM PST by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: buwaya

Bump.

43 posted on 11/16/2012 9:02:24 AM PST by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: LS

I was hoping you would weigh in. Have you seen the movie?


44 posted on 11/16/2012 9:04:27 AM PST by smokingfrog ( sleep with one eye open (<o> ---)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: smokingfrog

Not yet. I did see “Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter” which was pretty good. I’ll get to this. My gripe though is that the film looks at, I think, the wrong period of Lincoln’s life. It should have covered 1862-1864.


45 posted on 11/16/2012 9:11:37 AM PST by LS ('Castles made of sand, fall in the sea . . . eventually.' Hendrix)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: BobNative

Lincoln was a Statist. Nuff said.


46 posted on 11/16/2012 9:12:25 AM PST by gotribe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: central_va

Slavery was dying a slow death and it would have gone away. That being said, it was a good thing. However, ask anyone from SC about the Civil War and they will tell you, “We did not want a bunch of Yankees telling us what to do!”


47 posted on 11/16/2012 9:12:59 AM PST by lone star annie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Pietro

Slavery was made legal again in the 1960s.


48 posted on 11/16/2012 9:15:43 AM PST by gotribe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Pietro

Would anyone condone a person who sent the equivalent of 8,000,000 men today to death for ant reason short of mass murder?

Lincoln was a foul human being who like Obama could not accept people who did not bow down to him. He suspended habeus corpus illegally, instituted an income tax illegally, and directed atrocities to be committed against the southern people. He condone the rape of southern women by Sherman’s army. He should be considered a war criminal rather than an honored President. But, winners get to spin their own truths. Just ask Obama.


49 posted on 11/16/2012 9:16:03 AM PST by georgiarat (Obama, providing incompetence since Day One!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Lee'sGhost

No, but I have noticed how otherwise good FReepers who are also Lost Cause Losers default to libtard-type “reasoning” when it comes to these discussions.


50 posted on 11/16/2012 9:17:43 AM PST by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-119 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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