Posted on 12/08/2013 10:02:57 AM PST by PeaRidge
I figured I had everyone covered with those pics.
If a person doesn’t like beer, a beautiful woman, or puppies and kittens, then they are insane.
Yep, it’s also capable of shooting lightning bolts from its eyes. A truly savage beast that is to be respected.
I nominate this for the Dumbest Mandela-Related Thread Of The Week award.
Nelson Mandela Vs Bill Ayers Vs Yasser Arafat...
Lincoln’s not part of the mix.
Lincoln did not want war. Mandela was a communist terrorist.
Most of them out the part about him being a vampire killer.
Let me rephrase that Lincoln would rather not have had the war, but the south wasn’t going to stick around and he wasn’t willing to let them go. Lincoln would probably have compromised on the slavery thing to avoid it.
Well that would set him apart from Mandela right there.
I don’t recall Old Abe necklacing people as Mandela’s family did. Specifically his wife. I don’t recall the pubbies cutting of the noses of people who voted for their opposition as the ANC did. No I don’t think there is anything to discuss and no similarities whatsoever. Simply wishful, romantic nonsense.
That would be pretended confederate general Hood who burned Atlanta.
That would be the thousands of southern deserters who burned houses after they returned home and were not supported by states rights politicians after years of service to the slave power, and in response looted and burned local farm houses.
Lincoln worked to pass the 13th Amendment that freed all the slaves. He didn’t just free the southern slaves, but he did recognize that the federal government had limited powers to free slaves, absent an insurrection or constitutional amendment.
So he issued the EP to weaken the insurrection, and worked toward the amendment.
Confederate Nathan Forrest comes closest to that with the atrocities at Fort Pillow: chaining Union soldiers to burning logs.
Mandela was a terrorist Lincoln was not.
now you all know Obama would send the army against the Southern states if we decided to secede .and the media again would use the demonozation of us as being racist to justify the invasion.
who does the buck stop with ? who is responsible for all these American deaths: all the following for what?
http://www.nps.gov/history/nr/travel/national_cemeteries/death.html
The Civil Wars rate of death, its incidence in comparison with the size of the American population, was six times that of World War II. A similar rate, about two percent, in the United States today would mean six million fatalities. As the new southern nation struggled for survival against a wealthier and more populous enemy, its death toll reflected the disproportionate strains on its human capital. Confederate men died at a rate three times that of their Yankee counterparts; one in five white southern men of military age did not survive the Civil War. Twice as many Civil War soldiers died from disease as from battle wounds, the result in considerable measure of poor sanitation in an era that created mass armies that did not yet understand the transmission of infectious diseases like typhoid, typhus, and dysentery.
These military statistics, however, tell only a part of the story. The war also killed a significant number of civilians; battles raged across farm and field, encampments of troops spread epidemic disease, guerrillas ensnared women and children in violence and reprisals, draft rioters targeted innocent citizens, and shortages of food in parts of the South brought starvation. No one sought to document these deaths systematically, and no one has devised a method of undertaking a retrospective count. The distinguished Civil War historian James McPherson has estimated that there were 50,000 civilian deaths during the war, and has concluded that the overall mortality rate for the South exceeded that of any country in World War I and all but the region between the Rhine and the Volga in World War II.
If anyone starts an insurrection in the US, Obama should declare such an insurrection, and suppress it.
Of course if you want to legally secede you need
(1) majority of house and senate, and 3/4s of the states for an amendment or
(2) majority of house and senate, and presidential signature for straight law or
(3) 2/3rds of Senate and presidential signature for treaty
(4) a valid supreme court cause by one or more states, that wins.
Of course if you could get a majority of house and senate and 3/4s of the states or presidential signature, you could resolve any particular grievance that would compel different people to combine to pursue secession.
Who would be responsible for loss of life associated with any insurrection? That would be the parties pursuing insurrection.
By the way, in 1860-1865 there was no new southern nation. Rather they were an insurrection, that failed to gain the recognition of any foreign government anywhere in the world.
but you now the communist Obama would send the army against states seceding and you know the media will lie and say it was an insurrection. and almost all will believe what the news media says.
history is rewritten by the liberal/marxist news media. in this fake universe Obama, Mandela,JFK,FDR , Martin Luthor king are messiahs, saintly heroes. what they really are : pieces of crap evil marxist scum
Confederate men died at such a high rate because the pretended confederate army shot its own men at a high rate.
No doubt the media would like, if they thought it would be to their master’s advantage, but if you start an insurrection, pretending an illegal secession, that would be an insurrection, and they could tell the truth, and label the insurrection as an insurrection.
rather ‘would like’ should be ‘would lie’
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.