Is that really the side of history they choose to side with?
Lib asskicker: I am not sticking up for dixiecrats, but "somebody" used this as an arguement in a previous question.
Lib ass: or you could go to hell
|
|
Is that really the side of history they choose to side with?
Lib asskicker: I am not sticking up for dixiecrats, but "somebody" used this as an arguement in a previous question.
Lib ass: or you could go to hell
Hitler could have easily won the war. I guess in your world that would have made him a great leader.
I've read a lot of books on Lincoln and the side that we get spoon-fed in school and by the media does not show the whole story. The only part they choose to focus on and promote is the abolition of slavery. There was A LOT more to it than that. Lincoln did not give a flip about emancipating slaves. He had a different agenda.
Do liberals realize that Lincoln was a Republican?
Lincoln only freed the slaves because it was a good way to hurt the South; he didn't care about them or think of the slaves he owned as people. They were 3/5th of a person like they had always been. It was a liberal action at the time, it's a pity that it was the right choice for the wrong reasons.
Was Lincoln determined to destroy America with unsupportable debt? Did I miss that part of history class? Was Lincoln a communist that sat in a church that preached "God damn America" for twenty years?
YES, HE and congress created the IRS!!!
actually conservatives supported abolishing slavery, the poll tax, and supported civil rights dispute the dems kicking and screaming.
tough one to answer really. He did break the constitution freeing the slaves by the Fed Govt and slaves were considered property and he did lead the army of the north in an agressive war to thrwart the lawful leaving of the union by sovergn states.
Do you think Obama has the courage to duplicate what Lincoln did?
Bookmarks