POLL: Knowing What You Know Now, Which Wars Would You Approve?
- Thread starter What Would Jesus Do?
- Start date
Pay close attention. I am in favor of the power belonging to the states (many of them). This was lost in 1865. You support the consolidation of power in the hands of the few.
What are your thoughts on Lincoln being a white supremacist?
That South Carolina defended themselves against foreign invaders? No one got killed and Lincoln saw that as his motive to kill 750,000 people. Got it.
He was a man of his time.
My position on property is a person or entity owns something until they give it up. I don't think the government at any level should get to claim your property when a new government comes to power as you have now been exposed to believe. What a fraud you are. You're more of a Marxist than a libertarian.
Not invaders, they were sitting in their home and got attacked by the government. Its so fun that you defend this.
Finally, the big brains are weighing in. Hitler was a civil rights leader. Lincoln was evil. Why aren't you folks figuring this out on your own? Has Big Pharma gotten to you too!?!
I have always marveled at your game...when you're on the sidelines.
I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.
~ Abraham Lincoln, Debate with Stephen Douglas, Sept. 18, 1858, in Abraham Lincoln: Speeches and Writings, 1832-1858 (New York: Library of America, 1989), pp. 636-637.
“I say that we must not interfere with the institution of slavery . . . because the constitution forbids it, and the general welfare does not require us to do so.” (Collected Works, Vol. III, p. 460). Lincoln again
In fact, he was a much more extreme white supremacist than most, for he advocated "colonization" or the deportation of black people from America for his entire adult life. As soon as he entered politics in the early 1830s he became a "manager" of the Illinois Colonization Society which sought to use state tax funds to deport the small number of free blacks living in Illinois out of the state (the state amended its constitution in 1848 to prohibit the immigration of black people into the state, an amendment that Lincoln supported).
Kind of makes you question where you've been getting your news, huh? Can you believe Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly never mentioned this?
Also, I drew a comparison of Hitler and Lincoln and you mistakenly tried to paint them as opposites.
Last edited:
NO WAR is a fight for "the little guy" Although, wars are fought BY the little guys. They're started and finished and restarted later by people you endorse for elected offices. It's part of the game you like to play. You're the game-piece.
Props to Kiting and Nat for trying to explain to the hard-head who is clinging to some "moral high ground" argument to justify a war. He believes in wars of self defence (it's defense, by the way). I don't think America has experienced a war of self-defense since 1812.
Not really, I learned that in 2nd grade history class under Mrs Von Tersh. Pretty lady as I recall with an affection for smurf figures and Neutragina hand cream.
Written 20 years before anyone saw a secession movement. SC became signators to the formation of The Union. When they seceded, what was theirs before a marriage isn't suddenly dispossessed because of divorce.
My Marxist that not how property rights work. When the guy that sold you your house gets married or has a kid or a sex change or even dies, he doesn't get to reclaim your house against your will.
Probably several, I'm sure we all do, even non-white people. You need to develop a less sophomoric view point.
This is the kind of post you get from Natural when he's lost. He can't refute what you've proposed, so he resorts to a deflection decorated in what he thinks is clever.
And, to think you "had me dead to rights." So much for that. Did you place your bet across-the-board on that assumption? I love how you've managed to convince yourself that Fort Sumter was justification to invade the Southern states with a full-scale military excursion! Although, I'm sure that all of those in the South were glad they did. They were dying to have a war, too. At least their war was for self defenSe.
Why would I need to refute the Lincoln positions on black folk? They are true, I knew that, even alluding to that general popular position in one of my earlier posts. You lost the debate on Ft. Sumter my man. Your friend tried to invoke communist logic to aide you, but even he acknowledged the South fired first which was the bone of contention.
I dunno, nor do I care, what "ist" logic was used. That's your world, not mine.
If you think Sumter was justification for the USA to embark upon the worst war in the nation's history, please stop this pretentiousness of being the champion for the little guy and ones who can't defend themselves. If you want to claim that while you endorse and support political figures, and ideologies, who's intentions and actions result in the opposite result, then you're doing the meek more harm than good.
I know, it's amazing how much you like to go on about things you don't understand. It's sort of cute actually.
You make this claim a lot, for a guy that has to wear a helmet around the house and isn't allowed sharp objects.
Says the man too scared to engage on the merits of a discussion. Respect for knowing your limits.
I'm just enjoying watching you make a fool of yourself again. You don't need my help for that.
I'm just glad to see him openly admit to be a supporter of people who are champions of many of the things he himself claims to be vehemently opposed. Sure makes me even more suspect of his true principles. I already know his feigned altruism for the weak and the poor are just extensions of his own need for self-victimization.
The South firing the 1st shot was never a bone of contention. Don't move the goalposts. The North was on SC property.
At least now he'll understand what I mean by "Everyone is a historian." I think it bothers him that not everyone is in agreement with his version, or the versions he chooses to believe.
I sincerely think he's a paid stooge whose job is to muddy the waters in favor of statism for the likes of Cass Sunstein.
Nah... he's not that important. They don't need to pay people for that anyway.
Pope-altar boys, Wiki a right wing website? Fact checking on Wiki? All this while we're discussing the Civil War? Are you high?
Oh, no... that is natural's ONLY bone of contention. You see, ordering someone off your property and them disregarding you, and you resorting to gunpowder, means the squatter has the moral high ground... in his mind. He's actually managed to equate "moral high ground" into the concept of War. That requires a special kind of genius.
Except the squatter as you name them is the property owner. You are supporting the government confiscating property. This thread has been such a joy. Thank you all.
So the United States is the true villain of the world and every other country has a right to hate us and want what our government dead, and if we were smart we would gtfo before it's too late, seeing as how HROT is capable of making arguments to support that we're at fault for anything and everything, particularly involving all the wars our country has fought in?...............
