How 'bout a Money Bomb for ROBERT E. LEE - January 19th?

The money bombs are about a month apart and all we have done has increased the total on second time around. I say keep doing what works until it doesn't work anymore, then try something different. GO RON, PWN IOWA!!!!
 
</tongue removed from cheek>

If you people read the post it's more of a criticism of the MLK day bomb rather than a real proposal for Robert E Lee.

Bingo! Apparently you're the only one who took the trouble.

Money bombs should be themed around something the whole country can get behind.

Precisely my point. If at all.

Already one on the 17th...

So why am I being dunned for this MLK thing?

Nevertheless, I do think that on the merits, Lee is a much better candidate for such adulation than King; he wasn't any kind of communist sympathizer, and he was (so far as I know) faithful to his wife, just for starters.

In fact, now I think of it, he comes closest in my mind in his character to Ron Paul of the figures I know about in American history.

Read some of the articles I linked at LRC; you might learn something.
 
Bingo! Apparently you're the only one who took the trouble.



Precisely my point. If at all.



So why am I being dunned for this MLK thing?

Nevertheless, I do think that on the merits, Lee is a much better candidate for such adulation than King; he wasn't any kind of communist sympathizer, and he was (so far as I know) faithful to his wife, just for starters.

In fact, now I think of it, he comes closest in my mind in his character to Ron Paul of the figures I know about in American history.

Read some of the articles I linked at LRC; you might learn something.

Except for the little problem he had with it being ok for white people to own black people I'm sure he was a stand up guy. I'll take a communist and wife cheater any day over someone that thinks they have a right to own another human being.
 
Except for the little problem he had with it being ok for white people to own black people I'm sure he was a stand up guy. I'll take a communist and wife cheater any day over someone that thinks they have a right to own another human being.

A communist is someone who thinks it's okay (even ideal) for the State to own everyone, black, white, green or purple. That's what Communism is.

Slavery was an abomination, yes; but to extend it to everyone (which is what Lincoln did) is not a solution.

Also, I don't know what were Lee's exact views on slavery, only that his primary reason for going with the Confederacy was that the Union was attacking his own state. I also know that the "Civil" War was not fought over the issue of slavery.

"... he was the first choice to lead the Northern armies when the secession crisis arose. Now think for a moment what a decision this man faced.

"He was by choice a professional soldier, and here he was being offered the highest position a professional could hope for. Furthermore, he thought slavery was a moral evil, and he was opposed to secession. As a professional soldier, he surely knew that if war came, the South would lose. It was outmanned, outgunned, out-railroaded and out-industrialized from Day One. A man who put ambition above all else would have accepted in a New York minute, and no doubt the War Between the States would have been over much sooner. It was Lee's tactical genius that kept the South going.

"But Lee could not bear to make war on his native state of Virginia, where all of his family and friends lived. He declined the offer and resigned his commission." - Charley Reese
 
Last edited:
I am not making a personal judgment on Robert E. Lee or his fans. However, the idea that MLK is just as divisive as REL has no basis in reality. Unless you are talking about neo-Confederates or Stromfronters.

They both had their flaws and good points- like most people. But I don't think most "regular" folks have that much hate for either. People who go out of their way to oppose are most likely part of a fringe racial agenda.
 
I would also add the whole "communist" smear should be a non-starter. It reminds me of something a neo-con ( even though they have roots in communism) would say. It is also pretty much a code word for irrational racists to use to smear people who want INDIVIDUAL freedom opposed to the racists' love of collectivism and state-mandated racism. Collectivists calling other people "commies" are idiots.
 
When I was in high school – back in the 70s – my American History teacher … my black American History teacher strove to teach us that the American Civil War was not fought over slavery. In fact, the abolishment of slavery in the southern states was just another attempt by the government to weaken the South. The southern states wanted to keep states rights and the north was already moving toward a centralized government.

For such well informed people I’m surprised you all still fall for this line. Please do our country a favor and research.

I agree the market should decide – feel free to not give on this day. As for me and mine I would be honored to represent states rights in this way.

By the way just as an added tidbit of information for the curious (like my northern cousins) the reason the Civil War is such a big deal in the south is because …. Wait for it ……. The south never surrendered.

Gives a whole new meaning to “Never Surrender” doesn’t it?

We are indeed a varied group of individuals.
 
Today I received an email from my local RP Meetup, touting the propose Martin Luther King "money bomb" on January 21. Then I received an email from teaparty.07.com pushing the same thing.

No thanks.

First, the "money bomb" idea is in danger of deflation due to overuse. Once was good, twice worked, but I think three times is about the most it's good for before becoming old hat. And it only works if there's enough time between them to build up a head of steam. One month is not enough. Maybe, if it's used once more, as has been suggested, July 4th might be good.

Two, it's time to take a break and see what has come of the last six months' effort, money bombs and all. Today, and the next week, may change the entire landscape considerably -- may inspire, or force, Ron Paul supporters (including the many new people drawn to our ranks?) to come up with entirely new methods and approaches.

As an old fogey, actually I find myself somewhat dismayed at how fast things seem to change. For instance, I thought the Ron Paul Rally was a great idea (and the mosaics produced from it), but that whole effort seemed to die on the vine right after the first Straw Polls. Well, so be it. So far the RP grassroots has shown no lack of ability to come up with new ideas. That seems to be what really keeps this thing going.

Actually, I thought this idea had died a well-deserved natural death. RIP and all, but it was a poor idea to begin with, for reasons well-explored on this thread:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=60368

Well, okay, if you want a money bomb, I propose an alternative: How about a money bomb for the birthday of Robert E. Lee? After all, it's January 19th, earlier than MLK day.

For the record: For over 300 years, my ancestors have lived in northern (non-slave) states and colonies, and fought for Lincoln in the 1860s. I grew up in liberal California, educated in the public schools, etc., and until recently believed the whole official story of that time (e.g. that the Civil War was fought to end slavery -- in fact, I even used to believe it was a "civil war"), but in recent years have learned to know much different.

And one of the things I've learned is that Robert E. Lee was truly one of the great men of American history, by his intelligence, military genius, integrity and loyalty to principle deserving of a place alongside the Founders themselves. In fact, he was the greatest leader of the last serious effort to preserve the letter and spirit of the original Constitution (check out the Confederate version: a near-copy of the original, except that the Bill of Rights is included within it, rather than appended as an afterthought). I'm not kidding; see:
http://snipurl.com/robteleeatlrc

So why not a money bomb for this great man?

What, you say he's a divisive figure, would lose RP as much support as he would gain?

Well, that's equally true of Martin Luther King. MLK certainly did, or at least stood for, some good things, but he was hardly the unblemished saint portrayed in the official story. And a lot of people know this, especially people in the core Republican constituency that RP needs to attract and keep if he's going to win the Republican primaries.

Apparently, the official hagiography is all that the organizers of this "money bomb" -- one a recent immigrant, the other a 37-year-old who by his own admission has never voted (thus probably has never learned much about history, much less the real history) -- know about MLK. That's not their fault, and I have nothing against these guys, who've done great work for the campaign and deserve much kudos therefor, but here I'm afraid they've strayed unknowingly into dangerous waters.

If you want to associate Ron Paul with Martin Luther King, I suggest waiting until he has the Republican nomination -- especially if he's up against Obama. Now that could be interesting.

For now, let's give "money bombs" a rest. If you want to push for more money for February 5, find some other gimmick, and make it ongoing, maybe a rising crescendo of some kind. But wait until after New Hampshire, at least. Take a well-deserved break.

"It has been evident for years that the country was doomed to run the full length of democracy." - Robert E. Lee (1861)

I've always been partial to Stonewall Jackson

Stonewall Jackson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_Jackson

Incidently, regarding Paul's comments on Lincoln the other day, had Stonewall Jackson not been killed in an accidental shooting, the south might have won the civil war, and slavery might have become entrenched for another 100 years.
 
Incidently, regarding Paul's comments on Lincoln the other day, had Stonewall Jackson not been killed in an accidental shooting, the south might have won the civil war, and slavery might have become entrenched for another 100 years.

No, I doubt it. This is what the liberals want you to believe, why it was necessary to slaughter over 600,000 people to end it -- even though the war was not fought over that issue anyway. Slavery was not economically viable, and had already been abolished most everywhere else. Peacefully, as Dr. Paul points out, bless him.

On the other had, serfdom is definitely alive and well today. That was what Lincoln intended, and accomplished.
 
Except for the little problem he had with it being ok for white people to own black people I'm sure he was a stand up guy. I'll take a communist and wife cheater any day over someone that thinks they have a right to own another human being.

I'll remind you of that if I ever hear you quoting Jefferson or Washington or Madison or...
 
Back
Top