To: Bear_Slayer
Apparently it was just a bunch of meaningless drivel to Lincoln, considering the fact that he was denying a segment of people from exercising their freedom.
8 posted on
11/25/2007 5:14:02 PM PST by
Lee'sGhost
(Crom! Non-Sequitur = Pee Wee Herman.)
To: Lee'sGhost
The freedom to secede so that they could maintain a system in which they denied some people freedom? There's something recursive about this.
I'm grateful for the Wycliffe discovery, myself, but since I'm Catholic I suppose I should now make some pejorative remark about Wycliffe?
11 posted on
11/25/2007 5:18:32 PM PST by
Mad Dawg
(Oh Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.)
To: Lee'sGhost
Apparently it was just a bunch of meaningless drivel to Lincoln, considering the fact that he was denying a segment of people from exercising their freedom. And that segment you're talking about rebelled in order to ensure that one-third of their population couldn't exercise any freedom at all. So talk about the pot calling the kettle 'grimy arse'.
16 posted on
11/25/2007 5:35:13 PM PST by
Non-Sequitur
(Save Fredericksburg. Support CVBT.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson