Another way Lincoln was a tyrant.

Discussion in 'Politics and News' started by Anarchist420, Feb 7, 2013.

  1. OverVolt

    OverVolt Lifer

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2002
    Messages:
    14,077
    Likes Received:
    40
    I heard that Lincoln is doing good in theater's
     
  2. Pray To Jesus

    Pray To Jesus Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2011
    Messages:
    3,642
    Likes Received:
    0
    I watched the movie and thought it was good for what it is. I don't feel like reading a book about him because I don't care all that much.
     
  3. Atomic Playboy

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    16,440
    Likes Received:
    1
    So, here's a question: do you really think any of this matters? Honestly? Because the man has been dead for nearly 150 years. People got all riled up when they found out Jefferson got down with slaves on occasion... and now no one gives one single shit, because they realized he's been dead for over a century. Honestly, at this point, what Lincoln believed is completely irrelevant to national discourse about anything. So who gives one single solitary ***? What difference does it make?
     
  4. ivwshane

    ivwshane Lifer

    Joined:
    May 15, 2000
    Messages:
    17,986
    Likes Received:
    887
    I'm sure the OP will be happy to explain or maybe his buddy will.

    It's a good question though.
     
  5. Capt Caveman

    Capt Caveman Lifer

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2005
    Messages:
    33,725
    Likes Received:
    227
    He is a really sad individual. You'd think he'd be more concerned about the real world and his issues than his world of false history.
     
  6. Ausm

    Ausm Lifer

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 1999
    Messages:
    25,179
    Likes Received:
    1
    The South are still fighting these Battles. ;)
     
  7. Doppel

    Doppel Lifer

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2011
    Messages:
    13,313
    Likes Received:
    1
    Lincoln used to rape slaves and when the slave had his baby if it wasn't white enough he killed them :rolleyes:
     
  8. halik

    halik Lifer

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2000
    Messages:
    25,712
    Likes Received:
    1
    This. His way of coping with reality must be coming up with these junior high essay questions.
     
  9. OverVolt

    OverVolt Lifer

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2002
    Messages:
    14,077
    Likes Received:
    40
    Historically this is not true.

    You guys are bad at playing along. :awe: I had to do it myself and now its lame.
     
  10. werepossum

    werepossum Elite Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2006
    Messages:
    28,913
    Likes Received:
    267
    Pretty much this. It's akin to accusing Martin Luther King Jr. of cavorting with prostitutes. In the end, Lincoln did two massively good things - he kept the union together and ended slavery, which were each individually much more important than everything else he did or did not do. Not only might the evil of slavery lingered on for decades in a victorious South, but America would have been divided when the Western Powers needed a replacement for the Russians when they fell to civil war in World War I. And in World War II, our most important war ever (with the possible exception of beating back the Muslims or the Huns), at best America's great strength would have been divided and reduced, and at worst pitted against itself.

    I'm not minimizing his actions which were sometimes illegal, but it's impossible to properly judge them except within the context of the times and events and now, they should be only of real interest to historians.
     
  11. NoStateofMind

    NoStateofMind Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2005
    Messages:
    9,716
    Likes Received:
    6
    Facts are facts regardless of how much ignorance you choose. If you really cared to know you wouldn't be taking a crap here and deflecting. But you are and therefore only one thing remains. You really don't care and that's fine. Just don't come in here mouthing off things that are untrue.

    Thats great so you have head-in-the-sand syndrome. Don't feel bad you're not the only one. If you want to limit your knowledge then you limit your ability to converse on a intellectual level. I am not surprised though as your opening post in this thread confirmed how naive you really are.

    Since you have no intention of knowing all the facts there is no more discussion to be had. At this point its going to be you continuing to deflect and I value my time more than I do yours. Have a nice day.
     
  12. NoStateofMind

    NoStateofMind Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2005
    Messages:
    9,716
    Likes Received:
    6
    As I've already stated in this thread it means nothing now in the sense of immediate impact. What is happening here though is the same thing thats happening in public schools. "Its not important so lets not talk about it". You really support that? When I was in those same public schools the history teacher had a banner around the room and we recited this on a regular basis. The banner read "We must learn about our past to understand our future". Was that BS? Or is there something to the fact that history repeats itself? I realize many just don't care, okay, then why bother even posting?
     
  13. Zorkorist

    Zorkorist Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2007
    Messages:
    6,867
    Likes Received:
    1
    It means everything, yet today, and has immediate impact.

    A President, or a Congress, or a Judicial system, aka a Government, will try and take power to themselves. They will grow, and grow, unchecked, or unfettered, by the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights.

    To give up a single right, or to give Government power not granted by the constitution, is the bane of Democracy, and ultimately, as we are seeing, its undoing.

    -John {fiddling, while Rome burns}
     
  14. DixyCrat

    DixyCrat Lifer

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2008
    Messages:
    11,132
    Likes Received:
    69
    Actually this isn't true at all. Even monarchies tend to reflect the will of the people over time. If the people want to be ruled by a big-government then they will be, no matter what some paper says; if they want individual freedom they will have it, no matter what some tyrant says.

    The power struggles of the elite isn't about "do people get what they want" they are about "who gets the to exploit what the people want".

    Rome isn't burning; it's just following the demographic trends.
     
  15. ivwshane

    ivwshane Lifer

    Joined:
    May 15, 2000
    Messages:
    17,986
    Likes Received:
    887


    So basically if we don't agree with you then our head is in the sand? Got it.

    I asked you a pretty simple question and it appears you are the one deflecting.


    Have you ever heard of the term projecting? No need to look it up if you haven't, your posts are perfect examples of it.


    And a good day to you too;)
     
  16. cwjerome

    cwjerome Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2004
    Messages:
    4,294
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's aggravating to see how many people think history doesn't matter. And then we get to see the shallow political thinking of people who believe it... simplistic and ignorant. Then we even get to see the crap outcomes of a society that thinks it. History's importance in helping to discover who we are, why things are, what is good and bad, and where we are going is so self-evident I can't believe anyone intelligent would question the importance of understanding history.
     
  17. IronWing

    IronWing Lifer

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2001
    Messages:
    45,550
    Likes Received:
    2,108
  18. ivwshane

    ivwshane Lifer

    Joined:
    May 15, 2000
    Messages:
    17,986
    Likes Received:
    887
  19. Doppel

    Doppel Lifer

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2011
    Messages:
    13,313
    Likes Received:
    1
    Where did OP go?
     
  20. nextJin

    nextJin Golden Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2009
    Messages:
    1,848
    Likes Received:
    0
    his normal hit and run, expect another ridiculous post in a few hours.
     
  21. Ausm

    Ausm Lifer

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 1999
    Messages:
    25,179
    Likes Received:
    1
    Checking out to see if he got accepted in the new P&N "civility" forum experiment. ;)
     
  22. diesbudt

    diesbudt Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2012
    Messages:
    3,393
    Likes Received:
    0
    I thought he ate them like some demon?
     
  23. piasabird

    piasabird Lifer

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2002
    Messages:
    16,893
    Likes Received:
    22
    Even in 1776 they still had endentured servants. There was no welfare from the govt so freedom was a very thin and elusive thing. So are you making an argument in favor of slavery and presecution and openly selling human beings for profit?

    We just want to know what exactly you are for and against?

    Keep in mind that Lincoln was a politician and his public stance for election and his private beliefs may have been 2 different things. I could see that Lincoln may have opposed slavery but had to support the status quo to get elected as president. Then when the southern slave states revolted in open rebellion the president had justification to put down the rebellion in a civil war. Once the southern states were in rebellion, they had no say in the government.

    This is how history has been recorded. However, up to this point in time the States had more power and the state was more important than the Union. Some people have voiced the opinion that the Union did not have the right to start the war, but they forced their will on the southern states. I think this was caused by the southerners and northerners having a completely different way of life. However the north needed the south as much as the south needed the north so one side prevailed in the conflict. When both sides in a conflict are willing to rule by force, only one side can win. The South wanted to force their will upon the North as much as the Union wanted to force the South to their will. Only one side could prevail.
     
    #48 piasabird, Feb 11, 2013
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2013
  24. Abwx

    Abwx Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2011
    Messages:
    8,255
    Likes Received:
    156
    While endorsing the genocide of the native people.....:rolleyes:

    Talking about the Huns.??..:biggrin:
     
  25. werepossum

    werepossum Elite Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2006
    Messages:
    28,913
    Likes Received:
    267
    Point taken. I'm all in favor of pointing out the things that Lincoln did that were un-Constitutional and/or illegal, as well as discussing the positions he held which are repugnant to modern man as long as that discussion isn't judging him by modern sensibilities. But it's worth remembering those words penned by Jim Steinman: "Every hero was once, every villain was once, just a boy with a bad attitude." Neither great deeds nor terrible deeds are often done by saints, and for all his warts Lincoln accomplished more to end slavery than did the vocal abolitionists.

    You may well be correct about Lincoln the politician; I suspect hypocrisy has been around as long as elective politics. I think you're wrong about the South though; they only wanted to live according to their own will, not to force the North into living the same. I still think the South was wrong, however, on two fronts. First, I see nothing in the Constitution that covers secession, so once you're in you're in for the life of the union. And more importantly, slavery is an abomination; no one fighting for the right to keep human beings as property can ever hold the moral high ground. Slavery directly goes against our Constitution's preamble - if all men are created equal then obviously some of them cannot be born as property - and it's a blot on our national character that a nation founded on such lofty principles took a hundred years to do more than pay lip service to its own ideals and then another hundred years to really begin implementing it at a government level.

    That's certainly a valid point, but Lincoln deserves to be judged within his culture as a whole. That he (along with the huge majority of his contemporaries) did not live up to modern morality does not mean that they were not good people, merely not good enough to rise above their environment. Very few of us are, and of those few not many of us will do truly important things.