Why Demote Lincoln?

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by wkmac, Feb 18, 2009.

  1. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

  2. Overpaid Union Thug

    Overpaid Union Thug Eva Mendez Has A Nice (_!_)

    Here is a couple of quotes from Abe Lincoln.

    " I have no purpose of introducing political and social equality between the white and black races... That I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negros, nor 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 two which, in my judgment will probably forever forbid there living together upon the footing of perfect inequality, and in as much as it bocomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position."

    "If I could save the union without freeing any slave, I would."

    Yeah....sounds like a man that should be considered a savior. NOT!
  3. diesel96

    diesel96 New Member

    Would you rather live in The Divided States of America?

    This must be the year to throw Chicago politicians under the bus...lol
    And it's even more hilarious coming from those quoting Reagan in their signatures...:rofl:
  4. JimJimmyJames

    JimJimmyJames Big Time Feeder Driver

  5. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    Ah the Southern Avenger!



    You're so right, we couldn't have a divided nation and thus under this pretext we moved forward and destroyed the once independent nations of the native americans.

    I guess this also means for example you will sit there and justify the events of 12/29/1890' at Wounded Knee South Dakota as necessary in order to maintain an "undivided" nation? How dare we consider the 1973' events of Wounded Knee as a consequence of the 1890' events. That's 80 years ago, people need to stop thinking in the past for pete's sake. I hope for Pete's sake we never stop!

    Tell you what, net search the following:

    "People of the Six Nations"

    Iroquios Democracy

    Charles Thomson of Delaware and the events of June 11, 1776'

    After you get done looking a bit, rethink how you go about defending the necessity of the great American empire!

    BTW: If anyone has illusions that had the confederacy won, some southern utopia of freedom and greatness would be with us today? Think again. As a born and raised southerner with a long southern heritage going back to the late 1600's, I'm sad to say I'm not convinced of that at all!

    Also D, Germany and the Nazi version you made reference too was very much brought about by American actions in WW1 and post WW1 events. Take out the empirical self interests of the allied powers with repsect to Versailles and most historians agree the growth medium for Hilter is not there to begin with. WW1 was IMO the results of dying empirical colonial powers in their death days trying desperately to maintain their own empires. American entry only stood to prop up the dying Anglo empire with fresh blood on the same order as Bush/Obama using taxpayer supplied capitial to prop up the economic bubble that burst to put us where we are. Like the colonial empires of old, so do we now find ourselves faced with that same reality of lost standing and dominance as our means to pay for it has crashed into the wall of economic reality.

    Also take out the empirical self intersts of the allied powers and the growth medium for the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Brotherhood

    in the 1920's is not there and thus radical islamic ideals has no medium from which to build on. Also Iran is no problem because Persia and self rule would exist and therefore no need for radicalism especially towards America because the events to forment the hostility would most likely have never happened. It's also very easy to say Saddam Hussein would be an unknown history as Iraq would have never been either as without WW2 we would have no CIA to forment global meddling and various coup d'etat's making new enemies to funnel billions of taxpayer productivity from the wealth creation side of the economy into the corp. military industrial complex and the merchantile state creation side of the economiy. This in turn, creates wealth shortage amongst the people and forments a growing welfare class that in turn the State can use as a crisis to forment an ever growing state among us.

    And yes, it may be equally safe to say without WW1 and WW2, the conflict between muslim and jew would not be happening as also the destruction of 6 million jews would have never happened either thus formenting fear and allowing zionist manipulation of that fear to drive jews from among European populations. It also didn't hurt that the state used religion (christianity) to also make jews at many turns a scape goat for what otherwise was caused by the state and in some cases, the state church as well.

    One might also say as necessity being the mother of invention, that without WW1 and WW2, the landscape of dangerous weapons across the planet might look very different. WW1 brought the need for chemical weapons and led to research in biological agents and of course WW2 brought us the infamous nuclear bomb. We scream in fear about the muslim and his so-called appetite for dirty nukes or chemical or biological agents or in some case his outright desire for nuclear weapons. Who created these monsters to begin with? Using their context of necessity, what events brought these into being in the first place? And then what caused these "events" to come about making for such a necessity? Ironically, the Soviet Union and the rise of communism came as much about by the events of WW1 as by any other means sp again, WW1 lays another unintended consequence that over the next 6 or 7 decades has a tremendous effect on millions if not billions of lives across the planet. If we as individuals percieve the criminal element as an aggressive violent force and in a means to protect ourselves from them, we acquire the best in personal firearms to do this and we consider an affront if gov't dare try and impose to take our right from us to do this. Taking this to the level of nations, should we therefore insist this same right in face of realities of military might be stripped of other nations? If we argue for weapons control on the level of nations based on the fact we contend they will be misused against society, are we not accepting the argument of the anti-gun forces in American and therefore making their arguement for them? Ashame they aren't bright enough to take this point and turn it on the pro-war, pro-aggression anti gun control types and exposed them for their own hypocrisy!

    The right of self defense is an unalienable right that spans across the human specie and not just the american version!

    Looking at our own history of manifest destiny in relation to the native American, it doesn't take much imagination to transpose the middle east muslim into the place of the native american on the 20th century global scale and understand where the actions of the 19th century were the seedbed so to speak of a coming global manifest destiny. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wounded_Knee_Massacre (FYI, article is in dispute) in truth turns out to be a harbinger of bad things to come if one can open their mind. And thus so was Lincoln!

    The so-called Civil War, was not about slavery and in truth used slavery after the fact, and in a post war means to elevate the era into the mythical parthenon to justify the goodness if not the Godhead of statecraft. It's ironic that Lincoln's mythmakers glorify Lincoln's so'called freeing of the Slaves to then turn around and across society make them at best 2nd class citizens. Even during the days of segregation, I clearly remember the native american or even the Asian sitting in the downstairs of the movie theater while the African American was relegated to the upstairs balconey. As our founding fathers had their hypocrisy, so too does your "undivided" nation have as well. Sadly, what does this really say about us as we make up this nation to begin with? Don't you just hate it when I point out the obvious!:happy-very: I hate myself too sometimes.

    The war was really about economics if truth be told and it rarely is. Just as Bush used lies to forment his own war of legacy, so too has Lincoln and the Court historicains who champion the supreme state. It's historically ironic for me that John Wilkes Booth presents a very troubling duality so to speak. On the one hand, Booth murdering Lincoln mostly assured the murderous and evil period of reconstruction on the south in the post war years that actually led to much of the anti-african american sentiment in the south. Even many southern anti Lincolnites would admit that reconstruction of the south was not what Lincoln ever had in mind at all and Booth's murderous act in Ford's theater set the table for it all.

    On the other hand, had Booth been 4 years earlier so to speak and looking across the universe of time, how would our nation be different and for that fact our world be different today? History might suggest Booth was 4 years to late from a certain historical POV. The question is only one but with 1000's of potential answers but then I often ask myself the same thing in what if Kennedy's driver had pretended to be Jeff Gordon going through Dealy Plaza. We'll just never know!

    At the same time, had the founding fathers lived up to the classical liberal ideals found in the declaration of independence and not been cowards regarding slavery and the native peoples when it came time to writting the Constitution, history might be vastly different even for our nation of people and the circumstances of the 1860's might have been avoided all together. Their own lack of action brought about the unintended consequences of Lincoln. As much as I admire many of the founders, they were not without their hypocrisy either but then, name one human who's walked the planet who hasn't battled this troubling part of our very nature?

    To us, it may seem that not allowing a divided nation was a necessary evil if you will but using those actions in a context of setting up unintended consequences, the rest of the world may argue justly from their POV that a divided America would have been in the longterm interests and better historical outcome for the rest of the world!

    It's all in perspective my friend, all in perspective!
  6. IWorkAsDirected

    IWorkAsDirected Outa browns on 04/30/09

    I recently watched a documentary about Lincoln and apparantly he didn't care one way or the other about slavery. He actually stated that he could support either way as long as the nation was united.
  7. JimJimmyJames

    JimJimmyJames Big Time Feeder Driver

    Thank you for putting into words this dichotomy that I have always had trouble with. You take nothing away from our Founding Father's greatness, but nonetheless show them to be human, all too human.
  8. Overpaid Union Thug

    Overpaid Union Thug Eva Mendez Has A Nice (_!_)

    Mentioning Reagan in the same breath with Chicago politicians as if there is any comparison is also hilarious. And we do live in a "Divided States of America." B.E.T., Black Churches, Black Colleges, and programs like Affirmative Action make this ever more clear. Forget divide and conquer. It's divide and appease.
  9. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    Thank you for the kind words. We are all human and individually we make mistakes and make errors in judgement and in many cases there was never any evil intent to it. But these errors cause problems and have consequences and sometimes to those around us and to those we love and who love us.

    We have this illusion sometimes especially when our own political views are reflected that when individuals are grouped under the title gov't that human error and mistakes somehow disappear. Perfection is now achieved! :happy-very: As individuals, we are prone to feeding our own self interests with results sometimes that negatively effect others in society that most likely we don't even know. But then when we enter a realm called gov't, this driving self interest of human nature is turned off like someone would turn off a light switch. No matter what the political idealism is, only a fool would believe in such fantasy.

    Bush's bailout plan (along with his entire governing policy) served specific special interests at the misfortune of others and so too now is the Obama plan. If you will, Obama's majority of plunder beat out Bush's (in the form of McCain) plan of plunder and thus they rule the day. Being we live in an age of plunder via the rule of majority (democracy) I wonder what would happen if robbers and thieves actually formed a political party and got enough votes to themselves to become a majority power. Interesting concept when the rule of law demands all to rob and steal on a regular basis and gov't even builds a taxing structure around this new poltical economy to fund the State itself.

    Funny, with republicans and democrats, I already see this in place anyway but the problem is, I just have this "Thou Shall not Steal" thing running around in my head (right next to "thou shalt not murder") that just won't let me get with the program. Someone recently made a huge mistake and asked me my thoughts on religion. Never ask a question in which you are not mentally and emotionally prepared to hear the answer! :happy-very: She and her husband and friends went on this marvelous rant at me about how I'm of the devil, am going to hell, etc. etc. (and I actually agreed with her much to fueling her already excited fury) but she then made an interesting observation. She told me I had the spirit of Satan. I have to admit I need to do much more study as I've yet to find where Satan uttered the words, "thou shall not steal" but then again I'm a true monotheist and not a dualist so there you go! :wink2:
  10. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    Truth be told, I thought it was a pretty good observation myself. But considering D's idealism for plunder, it is a bit 2 faced!

    You know, it's truly sad that the majority doesn't rule the day. When not being manipulated and spun up to think a certain way, this pretty much sez it all.

  11. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

  12. moreluck

    moreluck golden ticket member

    As long as we're talking secession, can we please divide CA. with a line (E to W) across the middle and calll them N. CA. and S. CA.???:whiteflag:
  13. tieguy

    tieguy Banned

    Didn't we finish this argument approximately 165 years ago?

    Lincoln never had to inherit an economy in recession from his predecessor,

    Nor deal with an army and intelligence agency weakened by his predecessor.

    Nor did he have to deal with a terrorist attack on 9/11.

    Never did he conquer a nation that most experts said could not be conquered and kept intact.

    In fact lincoln almost lost a war in which he had manufactoring superiority to a bunch of southern hillbillies that were so poor they often fought in bare feet.

    Nope Abe's greatest accomplishment was being assassinated. It tends to vault presidents to a stature well above their abilities and accomplishments.

    Abe would have floundered here dealing with the current idiots in congress.

    Abe was not strong enough to carry GW's jock strap.

    But he did write pretty speechs.
  14. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    More cracks in the glass house known as Lincoln Mythology


    and then from a completely different perspective but still shattering state mythology...

    Garry Wills on Lincoln's Black History
  15. diesel96

    diesel96 New Member

    Speaking of Presidential folklore mythology....

    What a grave solemn scenario Wirkman and the Southern Avenger portrayed the aftermath of "The Fuhrur", Lincoln's influence had on Unite-ing the States of America. If I came from another planet and read the works from Wirkman and The Southern Avenger, I would come away thinking what a dismal failure this United States should have become. Instead, surprisingly, It turns out, living in the United States didn't turn out that bad, except for a couple of hiccups down the road....like a couple of World Wars, a Great Depression, communism paranoia
    .....until...until... the after math of the Reagan era....
    I look at the house that Reagan built and that bronze statue recently dedicated for him and come away with the same conclusions as most of my Lincoln sour grape counterparts...........:wink2:
  16. tieguy

    tieguy Banned

    I have to say reading this was an interesting exercise in paranoia.Was this your opinion or charles's? :happy-very:
    It would seem we took our sweet time jumping into WWI if we were really concerned about propping up the dying anglo empire. The wording is interesting. I'm sure there were many factors involved in our joining in to help our friends. The german submarine forces sinking our passenger liners and plotting against us with mexico via the zimmerman telegraph to name a few. Its clearly apparent that we did try to stay out of it and then for a number of reasons we did finally jump in. I do love the line about propping up our dying anglo empire line it has a deliciously sinister sound to it that must get every government hater aroused just reading it.:happy-very: