Posted on 01/18/2005 5:57:53 PM PST by wagglebee
WSlavery was a dead issue and ABRAHAM LINCOLN campaigned for slavery every single time he was elected!!!!!!
Slavery was OUT .... the issue was more spin...just like the Dimmercrats you obviously worship...you are definitely a carpetbagger and a stupid and uneducated one at that
Your seeping attitude is rude...and I doubt if you have ever done a damned thimng to defend the Union which you cannot even define...the Confederacy was an attempt to defend the Union as it was mandated in the Constitution
Snide bastxxd
A POST FROM ANOTHER FORUM FOR MR.GREGGINN
Here is your espoused legacy....
To: WaterDragon
I worked on MLK Day. I will never celebrate it. Lee - Jackson Day warrants a moment of reverent remembrance.
"During MLK's reign. I watched the imported black hooligans from "up north" invade southern towns in squadrons of ( to us) luxury buses. I watched them take peaceful local negro populations to a mad frenzy with their African-style dances and chanting. I watched the ordered and demanded mass destruction of homes and businesses that followed. I saw a woman and her unborn baby murdered as the black swarm took her white Fiat on Union and Main Street, turned it over with her in it and smashed it upside down over and over and then swarmed on to do more destruction. I watched cowardly and confused "City Fathers" let the rampaging and destruction go on for three days spreading for tens of blocks of destruction in every direction. Gunfire rang from the black imports constantly. Whites in cars were shot at. White homes were shot into. Several whites in their homes or cars were wounded. This was never reported.I listened as the "City Fathers" crooned how enlightened we were because we would do nothing and let the blacks riot as long as they wanted to. I listened to the calls to do nothing because the outside busloads of thugs would leave soon and "we just love our peaceful black citizens". They didn't leave and our peaceful citizens just became more violent and murderous.
On the fourth day, Atticus-type calm middle class, peace-loving white people stepped onto the treacherous , empty of cops, streets, starting openly with Main Street this time openly armed with long guns on their shoulder as the 2nd Amendment expressly mandates for riotous situations like this when unchecked by feckless and cowering local government "leaders".
On the sixth day the governor sent in hand-picked riot troops from the State Troopers and National Guard and began the month-long process of putting down the riot and murder and rampant terror and destruction. To this day, this city cowers to every black and leftist whim and has a predictable very low rated "touchy feely" education system and a low level of real medical expertise and a low level of growth, cultural development and job creation. A sister city in North Carolina, was smaller than this city in my lifetime and is now six times as large and vibrant. This city just refused a world class museum as the Last Capitol of the Confederacy. This city is Danville , Virginia.
I watched CBS ( yes your damned beloved Walter Cronkeit ), NBC and ABC show only the arrests of blacks and the water hoses to control the black swarm. Only this was reported and as usual it was NOT the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. It was as usual a skewed leftist diatribe.
I left that southern city as soon as I could and never returned; not because of what was done to blacks but because of the gutless reaction of the carpetbagger city fathers that persists to this day. To this day the murder and mayhem is NOT acknowledged , just as the opportunism and lechery and corruption of MLK is not acknowledged. I no more honor this man than I do the pandering Lincoln. Many years, three children, four degrees and a successful career and this schema is stronger than ever.
I did not hear about this; or read about it; or hear someone else tell it. I went with my friends every day and sat on the hillside next to the City Farmers Market and watched the hooligans stream out of their Detroit and New York buses and the murder and looting and wanton destruction that followed. I will also never forget formerly friendly black acquaintances in a stupor of violence and maniacal glee.I imagine the Hutus and Tutsis experienced the same scene when 800,000 were murdered by their relatives and acquaintances. Maybe race does matter.
60 posted on 01/19/2005 4:27:53 AM PST
Nope. Not gonna. It interests a lot of us; get used to it.
THAT is what these people can't see. Well put.
The South was the most highly educated part of the United States before the War of Northern Aggression. The "dumb cracker" motif was because the damned Yankees burned the Libraries and Courthouses by standing order and stole all the land and property from the women and children who were still alive. The kids slaved at 9 years old in the mills created by carpetbaggers just to survive. The Yankee occupiers installed black, green velvet dressed stooges who occupied the Governors mansions, while the South was used for cheap white labor under an occupying force, military then economic and Northern influx; while all profits were funnelled North for the next hundred years leaving the South destitute. Not a single man over 10 in my entire family survived the War. Their considerable property was then given to stooges and carpetbaggers.... enough ... someday the truth will out
Or: "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain". The WBTS was about freedom, period. That the neo-revisionist would have it be about slavery alone is hubris. They are claiming it was about freedom for blacks. "The North have no more against slavery than the South have". Charles Dickens. These United States became an industrial power on the back of cheap labor and at the price of freedom. The contract that the government had with the people had failed by 1860 and the South knew it. Some still don't. It is such a shame.
get an education...learn to read instead of parroting your puppetmasters
" I agree with what Lincoln stood for"
what??? gay rights, lying,whoring and pandering???
How is Robert E. Lee a "great American" when he engaged in treasonous rebellion against the U.S. government.
don-o said:
Answer this, then I will answer you.
How are George Washington, Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, etc..., great Americans when they "engaged in treasonous rebellion" against the British Crown?
\ _____
Well...
Anyone got something on that??
One of Lincoln's "standings" was that the Union should be preserved and if slavery would do it he was all for it. Are you in favor?
What got me was his argument that because Lincoln was a Republican that he was on the right side. I still cannot imagine anyone trying to equate the politics of the 1860's to the politics of today, particularly as it relates to party affiliation. Here in Maryland, members of the local government were jailed if they were perceived to sympathize with the South. That is very un-Republican if you ask me! Republicans of today (most of them) believe in reducing the power and influence of the Federal government in our lives and pushing many issues to the state and local powers... something the sons of the South fought for. If he is really a Republican, he has more in common with the South than he wants to admit. He just might be one of those who was brainwashed by a college professor and cannot escape the PC grip. Who knows?
He's a lurker
You just told some truth.
Thank you.
Let Me Say It S-L-O-W-L-Y...
The Constitution puts limits on the federal government, to provide protection for the people and the states.
If you read the Constitution it says that the writ of habeas corpus will not be suspended unless invasion or rebellion requires it. It does not say who may or may not suspend it...
I'm not a Constitutional Law professor. I am not a lawyer. I am a citizen. And any citizen should have at least this basic understanding...so I am wondering if you're trolling here or intentionally blowing smoke. But since I don't have enough time to call all the bluffs you've made, let me illustrate this one...
Note the way each of the first three articles of the Constitution start:
Where does the line about habeus corpus fall? Gee...it's Article I...where things pertaining to the Legislative Branch are listed.
...and the Supreme Court has never ruled on who may not suspend it.
Obviously, because it's quite clearly listed with the Congressional powers (Article I), there's no need to "rule" on it. If you misled intentionally, that's a rather sneaky debate technique, throwing in a dash of argumentum ad ignorantiam, too. p> Lincoln's actions have never been shown to be unconstitutional.
See above, both in this message, and in others.
What? Not true.
I must admit Greg has a nice sense of humor....that goes a right fur piece (-;
Makes me ALMOST want to retract the carpetbagger label.....naahhhhh
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.