Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: x
Because they thought they would fare better in a Ba'athist slaveholders' republic than in a Republican-ruled union.

Its peculiar you of all people would attempt to draw a link between Saddam Hussein's political operation and the confederacy. After all, are you not the same individual who practically went off a very verbiose deep end when I simply pointed out Karl Marx's embrace of The Lincoln's agenda? You blasted me with complaints that I dare draw any relation between the Marxist movement and The Lincoln, even though historically there was a shared political position between them. Yet here you are using language that connects the confederacy to a completely unrelated islamo-arab political movement from 130 years later and on the other side of the globe. What gives?

540 posted on 11/15/2002 2:43:24 PM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 526 | View Replies ]


To: GOPcapitalist
What gives?

Just trying to fit in with the theme of the day and stay relevant.

As I recall, I don't think you demonstrated any real "embrace" by Marx of Lincoln's "agenda," unless by "agenda" you mean the end of chattel slavery, something that many others would also support.

544 posted on 11/15/2002 4:06:55 PM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 540 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson