(09-12-2013 05:52 PM)Jerry Falwell Wrote: Listening to Newt and Van Jones dismantle Putin on Crossfire...
1. He is a strong Nationalist
2. He went into Georgia, a prior USSR state, to kill them for seceding.
3. He killed hundreds of thousands of his own people
Isn't this exactly the same as Abe Lincoln? Why is Lincoln great, and Putin terrible?
Conservatives defending Putin?
I love it. Nothing like cutting off the nose to spite the face.
I'm actually tearing down Lincoln, not propping up Putin.
Thank goodness. After watching Fox News last night, I thought Rudy Guliani was going to pleasure himself with a picture of a shirtless Putin.
(03-04-2014 01:52 PM)Ole Blue Wrote: Why did Lincoln do what he did? Why has Putin done what he has done? Lincoln did not seek to control the world and expand his empire - he sought to re-unite the country and enact social changes. Putin is seeking to expand his empire and his only interest is in "protection" of Russian-speaking people, like what Hitler's Third Reich did in Poland for instance.
So, you are aware that Ukraine was part of the USSR?
Similarly to how The Confederacy was it's own Nation and Lincoln "sought to expand his empire"?
no way I could stomach reading this thread....but you nailed that response based on the subject line...
the end result is always going to be about control and monies....
our animalistic control method will continually change....but will only slowly improve over vast amounts of time
.....animals evolve and adapt to survive...yet, animals suffer extinction and the peril from the fray of humans
but we're human since we now type symbols of communication....
....suffocation at it's height of glory
It improved after the Civil War, but digressed slowly during the early to mid 1900's (pre civil rights era) and then began to balance itself out and has now begun to go back into a downward spiral...
03-04-2014 02:28 PM
SumOfAllFears
Grim Reaper of Misguided Liberal Souls
Posts: 18,213
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation: 58
I Root For: America
Location:
(03-04-2014 01:52 PM)Ole Blue Wrote: Why did Lincoln do what he did? Why has Putin done what he has done? Lincoln did not seek to control the world and expand his empire - he sought to re-unite the country and enact social changes. Putin is seeking to expand his empire and his only interest is in "protection" of Russian-speaking people, like what Hitler's Third Reich did in Poland for instance.
So, you are aware that Ukraine was part of the USSR?
Similarly to how The Confederacy was it's own Nation and Lincoln "sought to expand his empire"?
no way I could stomach reading this thread....but you nailed that response based on the subject line...
the end result is always going to be about control and monies....
our animalistic control method will continually change....but will only slowly improve over vast amounts of time
.....animals evolve and adapt to survive...yet, animals suffer extinction and the peril from the fray of humans
but we're human since we now type symbols of communication....
....suffocation at it's height of glory
stinkyfinger, put the crack pipe down and step away from the keyboard
March 4, 1861...........Confederate Convention in Montgomery, AL approves of the "Stars and Bars" as the National Flag, (the first flag) of the Confederate Nation.
So in one thread people brag that the Republican party is the Party of Lincoln, standing for ending slavery and promoting civil rights and in another there's a consensus that Lincoln was an awful tyrant and you want to disassociate yourself from that legacy.
(03-05-2014 01:13 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote: So in one thread people brag that the Republican party is the Party of Lincoln, standing for ending slavery and promoting civil rights and in another there's a consensus that Lincoln was an awful tyrant and you want to disassociate yourself from that legacy.
That's some Orwellian doublethink right there.
Well, you need to make the distinction about which posters are saying what.
(03-05-2014 01:13 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote: So in one thread people brag that the Republican party is the Party of Lincoln, standing for ending slavery and promoting civil rights and in another there's a consensus that Lincoln was an awful tyrant and you want to disassociate yourself from that legacy.
That's some Orwellian doublethink right there.
Well, you need to make the distinction about which posters are saying what.
There is no distinction. It's the same posters, some of the more conservative ones. They know who they are. The OP is one of them.
(This post was last modified: 03-05-2014 01:20 PM by nomad2u2001.)
(03-05-2014 01:13 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote: So in one thread people brag that the Republican party is the Party of Lincoln, standing for ending slavery and promoting civil rights and in another there's a consensus that Lincoln was an awful tyrant and you want to disassociate yourself from that legacy.
That's some Orwellian doublethink right there.
Well, you need to make the distinction about which posters are saying what.
There is no distinction. It's the same posters, some of the more conservative ones. They know who they are. The OP is one of them.
Sure there is. I'm one of the posters in the other thread (if it's the one I think you are referring to) that brought up the Lincoln was a Republican thing as it amuses me how that grinds the gears of the leftists around here. This thread? A. I don't really take the whole idea all that seriously, B. I've not "disowned" Lincoln or called him any of the things you suggest are being said.
Who said what and in what thread makes a difference.
(03-05-2014 01:13 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote: So in one thread people brag that the Republican party is the Party of Lincoln, standing for ending slavery and promoting civil rights and in another there's a consensus that Lincoln was an awful tyrant and you want to disassociate yourself from that legacy.
That's some Orwellian doublethink right there.
Well, you need to make the distinction about which posters are saying what.
There is no distinction. It's the same posters, some of the more conservative ones. They know who they are. The OP is one of them.
Sure there is. I'm one of the posters in the other thread (if it's the one I think you are referring to) that brought up the Lincoln was a Republican thing as it amuses me how that grinds the gears of the leftists around here. This thread? A. I don't really take the whole idea all that seriously, B. I've not "disowned" Lincoln or called him any of the things you suggest are being said.
Who said what and in what thread makes a difference.
I shouldn't have said "consensus" then. It doesn't make it any less interesting though.
(This post was last modified: 03-05-2014 01:29 PM by nomad2u2001.)
So, does that mean Texas can secede from the union without having another civil war? Great!
What I could never understand is I "thought" there was a fine print where it said that states could secede from the union. But what I can't understand either is why are posters here agonizing because the south couldn't keep slaves. Two wrongs do not make a right and in my opinion for what ever reason we went into a civil war is unimportant as it did free the slaves. Period.
Another thing, why were so many southerners willing to risk/give their lives for the wealthy southern land owners? Hey, if those owners couldn't find anyone to fight for their interests who's going to do the fighting for them?
(03-05-2014 01:32 PM)olliebaba Wrote: So, does that mean Texas can secede from the union without having another civil war? Great!
What I could never understand is I "thought" there was a fine print where it said that states could secede from the union. But what I can't understand either is why are posters here agonizing because the south couldn't keep slaves. Two wrongs do not make a right and in my opinion for what ever reason we went into a civil war is unimportant as it did free the slaves. Period.
Another thing, why were so many southerners willing to risk/give their lives for the wealthy southern land owners? Hey, if those owners couldn't find anyone to fight for their interests who's going to do the fighting for them?
So many questions. So many answers...here.
Regional identity. Up until the very last minute, the citizens of NC didn't want to join the Confederacy even though the members of the state legislature (wealthy land owners) did. The thought of having to fight against the rest of the south didn't sit well in the end though.
IMO, if the south were just allowed to secede, it would've had just SC, GA, FL, AL, MS, LA, and TX. The Confederacy would've fallen on its own. They weren't necessarily getting along at any point in its existence.
(03-05-2014 01:32 PM)olliebaba Wrote: So, does that mean Texas can secede from the union without having another civil war? Great!
What I could never understand is I "thought" there was a fine print where it said that states could secede from the union. But what I can't understand either is why are posters here agonizing because the south couldn't keep slaves. Two wrongs do not make a right and in my opinion for what ever reason we went into a civil war is unimportant as it did free the slaves. Period.
Another thing, why were so many southerners willing to risk/give their lives for the wealthy southern land owners? Hey, if those owners couldn't find anyone to fight for their interests who's going to do the fighting for them?
So many questions. So many answers...here.
Regional identity. Up until the very last minute, the citizens of NC didn't want to join the Confederacy even though the members of the state legislature (wealthy land owners) did. The thought of having to fight against the rest of the south didn't sit well in the end though.
IMO, if the south were just allowed to secede, it would've had just SC, GA, FL, AL, MS, LA, and TX. The Confederacy would've fallen on its own. They weren't necessarily getting along at any point in its existence.
Don't believe a word a black man (nomad in this case) tells you about Civil War history. Even as it happened, they didn't know what was happening. To this day, they twist it into "regional identity".
The war had absolutely nothing to do with slavery until it's 2nd year when Lincoln signed the emancipation proc. Fact. Look it up.
