The Gettysburg Address

[D-Ric902]

This thread has quickly turned into the longest line of bait yet.

 

[poptab]

Yea it might as well be a religious discussion.

 

[jamil]

Yea it might as well be a religious discussion.

Ideological zealotry isn't a whole lot different from religious zealotry, so, yeah. Pretty much that.

 

[rambone]

There are zealots all sides, Jamil.

I grew up supporting Lincoln and the federal government, pledging to the flag and feeling proud to be a part of the winning side, in every major war! Go USA! But now I find the "civil war" to be an appalling embarrassment in our history. What happened? Discussions and research, facing questions I could not answer. I was not so zealous that my mind could not be changed.

Think you can change my mind again? Not when you tell me I'm not worth your breath and call names.

 

[Hawkeye]

Yea it might as well be a religious discussion.

It is a religion to some. It may also be a call to action or incitement...

If I were a Mod, I think I know what I'd do after 24+ pages of non information and nondebate.

 

[Henry]

Lincoln was a tyrant that killed a republic of free association and birthed an association by force.

Feel free to debate.

 

[Henry]

Reading Karl Marx with Abraham Lincoln | International Socialist Review

"Reading Karl Marx with Abraham Lincoln
Utopian socialists, German communists, and other republicans"


No doubt this author from International Socialist Review is a fan of lincoln.

 

[Henry]

Scottish Vote Scares London | Armstrong Economics

I wonder if London will find a Lincoln to beat and plunder those Scotts to stay in the union instead of letting them withdraw peacefully.

 

[jamil]

Scottish Vote Scares London | Armstrong Economics

I wonder if London will find a Lincoln to beat and plunder those Scotts to stay in the union instead of letting them withdraw peacefully.

I wonder if the Scotts want to leave so they can preserve the ability to own other people.

 

[poptab]

I wonder if the Scotts want to leave so they can preserve the ability to own other people.

I wonder if Londoners will justify the slaughter of 100s of thousands of scots in the name of preserving their freedoms?

 

[CountryBoy1981]

I wonder if Londoners will justify the slaughter of 100s of thousands of scots in the name of preserving their freedoms?

That is my questions also. Would we cheer on England for going to war against Scottland and having hundreds of thousands dead or would we demand that England cease and negotiate a cease fire? If the question is what would Lincoln do, the answer is he would lead England into a war against Scottland to preserve the United Kingdom.

 

[Hawkeye]

Guys, there is only one "t" in Scotland and Scot or Scotts.

 

[jamil]

Guys, there is only one "t" in Scotland and Scot or Scotts.

Oh, I don't care.

 

[jamil]

That is my questions also. Would we cheer on England for going to war against Scottland and having hundreds of thousands dead or would we demand that England cease and negotiate a cease fire? If the question is what would Lincoln do, the answer is he would lead England into a war against Scottland to preserve the United Kingdom.

Apples and oranges unless you have an ideological axe to grind that helps you dismiss the obvious differences.

 

[poptab]

Apples and oranges unless you have an ideological axe to grind that helps you dismiss the obvious differences.

Is that like the people calling anyone critical of Lincoln a slaver?

 

[jamil]

Is that like the people calling anyone critical of Lincoln a slaver?

I'm critical of Lincoln. I'm just not off the cliff about it. But some of you guys would follow your ideology right over the edge. I guess that's why I'm only 94% libertarian. I draw the line at ideological absurdity, which is about the point where ideology becomes impractical.

 

[D-Ric902]

I'm critical of Lincoln. I'm just not off the cliff about it. But some of you guys would follow your ideology right over the edge. I guess that's why I'm only 94% libertarian. I draw the line at ideological absurdity, which is about the point where ideology becomes impractical.

 

[rambone]

I'm critical of Lincoln. I'm just not off the cliff about it. But some of you guys would follow your ideology right over the edge. I guess that's why I'm only 94% libertarian. I draw the line at ideological absurdity, which is about the point where ideology becomes impractical.

Ok Jamil,

Scenario: Half the country wants to leave and govern themselves. Secession.

You say, "Impractical." Is secession difficult to achieve in practice? Nope. It can happen without intervention, without bloodshed.

You say, "Absurd." Is secession nonsensical to understand? Hardly.

The vastly more "off the cliff" solution is to fill a bunch of mass graves and build a mountain of debt while demanding unwanted unity -- which some would call an "ideological absurdity."

 

[MisterChester]

That is my questions also. Would we cheer on England for going to war against Scottland and having hundreds of thousands dead or would we demand that England cease and negotiate a cease fire? If the question is what would Lincoln do, the answer is he would lead England into a war against Scottland to preserve the United Kingdom.

I don't think so. Lincoln had no obligation to recognize the "seceded" states because there was no process to do so. If Rick Perry went on TV and said "Texas has seceded from the union" (as a present day instance) it would not hold water because there is no legal process to do so. Scotland, as far as I am aware, is holding a legitimate and lawful election about the matter. If there was no legal way to do it, and Scotland claimed they seceded anyway and initiated combat on the UK, then that would be the modern equivalent of what happened in 1860-61 here in America.

 

[jamil]

Ok Jamil,

Scenario: Half the country wants to leave and govern themselves. Secession.

You say, "Impractical." Is secession difficult to achieve in practice? Nope. It can happen without intervention, without bloodshed.

You say, "Absurd." Is secession nonsensical to understand? Hardly.

The vastly more "off the cliff" solution is to fill a bunch of mass graves and build a mountain of debt while demanding unwanted unity -- which some would call an "ideological absurdity."

Can you really separate the civil war from slavery? Really? What facts must you ignore to do that? What mindset must you have to do that? Ideological absurdity indeed.