Posted on 08/11/2004 7:08:05 AM PDT by The Wizard
And that's the REAL reason the demonrats hate GWB: not only is he everything they hoped billyboy would be, he will be remembered for planting the seeds that grew into peace to the Middle East.....
Washington was the Father of our country, and Lincoln freed the slaves, and GWB started the journey that will eventually bring peace to this troubled part of the world, and the rats hate him for it, so much so, that I wouldn't put ANYTHING past them.......
The real democrats, who controlled the party when Tip was the Man, lost control to the clintonistas, and he was so bad, the party regulars fled as the goon squad came in to defend their leader......
But as I sat watching Rummy from Afgahistan today speaking about 9 million folks so hungry to vote they risk their lives to register, it told any logical man that so it will be in Iraq, and all the other kingdoms throughout the world.....
The time of kings is over, now is the time of the little man, and he never had a stronger, braver friend than Ronald Reagan or GWB......
While not asking for this honor, GWB had it blown up on him on 9-11, and the world will be a safer, better place when this is done.
God Bless and protect GWB....
NOT EVEN CLOSE. Nice try though.
Lincoln was more Big Government than most liberals today. He trashed the COnstitution and created the mess we have in Washington now. He was a nominal Republican, only because his real party name already had a bad reputation.
It's call being HONEST with the FACTS.
I agree....some of his speeches have been so incredibly good I am amazed, well maybe not, that the historian haven't seen it....
It looks more like making it up as you go along to me.
Wizard, that was beeeeautiful! What an up-lifting post! *~*
You need to check your history. 1861-1865, the CSA was a sovereign nation, parallel in most respects to the USA. We had our own President and legislature. Just because YOU deny it does not prevent it from being an historical fact.
Do you recognize Taiwan as a sovereign nation? I do. The US does. Same thing.
The CSA was conquered and absorbed into the USA.
Northern states had slaves until well after the War of Northern Aggression. The Emancipation Proclamation did nothing.
Make that 2 Amens!
Where in the Consititution is secession prohibited? NOWHERE.
IN a SICK, Strange way, you're correct.
Lincoln conquered the state I live in and forced it into the USA 100 years before I was born. Thanks Abe!
But I am, properly, a Christian First, a Georgian second, and an American third.
F-911 is fiction, just like the myth that Lincoln was a great President.
Oh, I've read plenty of it. It's crap.
Just like El Barfo's movie, only those who already hate the man believe it. Real historians have dismissed it as one-sided and so biased as to be completely worthless.
Lincoln preserved the union. Twist and distort that all you want, it is the truth. Like living in the USA? Thank Abe, he preserved it for you.
The Confederate States of America. The country to the south of the USA from 1861-1865.
You seem to have a very loose grasp on what constitutes a "fact"... according to Merriam Webster: a thing done or an actual occurrence.
I'm glad you're a fan, but let's not go overboard. Reagan single-handedly defeated a comparable superpower in the best way possible: without risking the lives of millions of young men... and he may never be uttered in the same breath as Washington and Lincoln. Bush43 overwhelmed an already-weakened Iraq and a desolate Afghanistan... not the stuff of legend. (Can you recall which president beat up on withering Spain and took numerous valued territories?)
Unless devastating attacks on the scale of 9-11 continue (and of course nobody outside of Kerry-supporters hopes for that), Bush's (potential) defeat of the Jihadists will never be seen as a major accomplishment.
As for peace in the Middle East, you're simply dreaming. The utter conquest of the region has never successfully brought peace. Installing a few fragile democracies won't do it either. Anything short of annihilation or the Rapture will likely fail as well. The successful implementation of strong democracies in the region would be credited to those "Founding Fathers" that forge them... not the outsider who helped out against significant political pressure. (Do we pay homage to the French - and numerous others across the globe - for their help in distracting vast portions of the British Army during the mid 1770's?)
You had everything except recognition of your sovereignity by the rest of the world. As far as they were concerned the confederacy was a rebellious part of the U.S., nothing more and nothing less.
Do you recognize Taiwan as a sovereign nation? I do. The US does. Same thing.
Put nobody recognized the confederacy as sovereign. Nobody.
Northern states had slaves until well after the War of Northern Aggression. The Emancipation Proclamation did nothing.
I'm not sure why this is important. The rebellion was not about freeing the slaves.
When exactly did the USA cease to exist? NEVER.
Let's say Lincoln took over a company. Half of his employees (the best half) don't like changes he's trying to implement. Lincoln is trying to control them not just at work, but at home as well -- what to eat, when to sleep, what to watch on TV.
Those employees exercise their right to quit.
Lincoln's company still exists. Just with fewer employees (less productive ones too). So the company is still preserved, no problem.
Instead of making do with what he's got, Lincoln sends armed soldiers into those employees homes and after killing 600,000, forces them back to work. His company is still preserved.
In fact, his company never went away.
So those who claim Lincoln "preserved" the "Union" are playing fast and loose with words just like Clinton did and Kerry is doing now. Never since its formation did the "Union" go away or was in danger of going away.
If you believe that he preserved it, then it only lasted until the next state was added... because then the "union" that he preserved was no longer there -- there was now an additional state.
If you can add to it, you can subtract from it.
Nor is it specifically permitted. But while the right to leave the Union may be permitted, the idea that it can be done in a unilateral manner is ridiculous.
Mexico?
Wow, that's a reach there, Wiz.
What unilateral???
Each state, by the same means that they joined the union, could vote to leave. The Union should NEVER be allowed to vote on letting a state out -- it doesn't work that way and would be useless if it did.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
