Ignorant comments concerning Civil War

[scoot87]

Lets please not act likewise with name calling and labeling, but instead respond with a sound intellectual response.

 

[fedup100]

Is it possible for the enemy to post these posts in our name?

While there may be some whackos and dirt bags that are in the Paul movement, I can assure you the enemy has cornered the market on this kind of underhanded tactic.

This is a HUGE movement of people. Most of them are fully awake, bushy tailed and ready for bear. Grow up, understand our enemy and get out of our way.

Let them whine and spew and pontificate on Paul's supporters as whacko's. Whacko's they may be, but by God they are my whacko's and I will stand with all of them as the storm the Bastile.

 

[paulpwns]

Those are classic Trolls from people that support opposing candidates.

 

[risiusj]

I found those comments disturbing as well. There's nothing better to do than ignore them.

 

[aspiringconstitutionalist]

Where did you find those comments?

 

[ThePieSwindler]

1. What forum is this on?

2. By defintion, no, lincoln did not "start" the agression, however, it was lincolns nationalist policies and threats on Confederate territory that provoked the attack on Fort Sumter, and the tactics later in the war were absolutely out of line, as was Lincolns use of near dictatorial powers during the war.

 

[PimpBlimp]

That is from the AOL poll on the Lincoln issue. It is widely known that AOL users are not exactly the cream of the crop when it comes to internet use.

 

[Granat]

Those are classic Trolls from people that support opposing candidates.

Everyone likes to jump the gun regarding TROLLS. Paul has a goofy account of the Civil War that very few (<5%) historians would agree with. The comments he made were very dumb, and have almost no historical accuracy.

I still support Paul, but I do have to admit that these comments are a little disturbing. I wish he would have avoided answering the question.

 

[constituent]

Everyone likes to jump the gun regarding TROLLS. Paul has a goofy account of the Civil War that very few (<5%) historians would agree with. The comments he made were very dumb, and have almost no historical accuracy.

I still support Paul, but I do have to admit that these comments are a little disturbing. I wish he would have avoided answering the question.

i think the "other 95%" argument only bolsters Paul's case....



...might just be me.

 

[Redmenace]

Is it just me or does this whole "Lincoln/Civil War" thing belong in historical debates. It seems to me that we should actually be debating issues that affect our modern day politics and not those of 150ish years ago. We shouldn't let this minute debate side track us from what is really important.

 

[nate895]

Lets please not act likewise with name calling and labeling, but instead respond with a sound intellectual response.

I think we are doing pretty well on the AOL Civil War poll, I think we're at around 35%, plus we are winning all but three former CSA States, much of the Mountain States, Vermont (all the secessionists must be voting there), and AK.

 

[Wyurm]

Everyone likes to jump the gun regarding TROLLS. Paul has a goofy account of the Civil War that very few (<5%) historians would agree with. The comments he made were very dumb, and have almost no historical accuracy.

I still support Paul, but I do have to admit that these comments are a little disturbing. I wish he would have avoided answering the question.

It wasn't dumb. His statement was correct and shows that he knows what he's talking about. He is also not the first person to say it. Lincoln could have freed the slaves without killing so many people. In fact, as Judge Napolitano says, Lincoln was one of the worst violators of the Constitution.

However, take notice of how people differ on their opinions of current events. The truth of what happened in history is often clouded by opinion. Lincoln killed alot of people with the Civil War, violated the Constitution, and even harrassed and threatened detractors. Should he be praised for one good deed out of plenty more horrid deeds? Or should the signing of the Emancipation Proclaimation be praised and not the man? If Bush were to do one really good thing should we all decide that he is a great man and all his deeds must be good since he did one good thing?

I understand saying that this was not a good thing to say while trying to get elected, but you can't expect Paul to not tell the truth.

 

[fedup100]

Everyone likes to jump the gun regarding TROLLS. Paul has a goofy account of the Civil War that very few (<5%) historians would agree with. The comments he made were very dumb, and have almost no historical accuracy.

I still support Paul, but I do have to admit that these comments are a little disturbing. I wish he would have avoided answering the question.

Uh!!! maybe you need to watch this video and get educated. Judge Napolitano knows what he is talking about and so does Ron Paul.


http://reason.tv/video/show/178.html

 

[Bob Spruill]

The nausiating idiocy and ignorance of Americans in regard to the so-called Civil War is scary to me. I have to get out on the highway and drive with these people.

Ron Paul is correct on this issue.

 

[jdmyprez_deo_vindice]

great

I think it is fantastic that these issues are coming to the forefront of modern political debate. I am a former neocon - in fact I voted for Bush twice and actually felt good about it for a time! One day I was giving a talk to my Sons of Confederate Veterans group and the issues of civil liberty as defined by Lincoln came up. It suddenly dawned on me that I had been suckered in and was supporting a man who is in many aspects on par with Lincoln. From that day forward I examined everything I thought I believed in a little more closely and eventually I discovered Ron Paul and realized that this is what I wanted all along. The issues of the 1860's do have a significant relevance for today. If you ever start really examining where our current problems originate, you will find many of them came into being at the white house circa 1861!

 

[rachmiel]

RP scored himself some points with the southern states with that comment. Thanks Timmy!

 

[MrCobaltBlue]

Just reply with the classic:

rofl ur bad l2p

 

[Buzz]

The nausiating idiocy and ignorance of Americans in regard to the so-called Civil War is scary to me. I have to get out on the highway and drive with these people.

Ron Paul is correct on this issue.

Tell me about it. You can thank the public education system.

 

[raiha]

Let them whine and spew and pontificate on Paul's supporters as whacko's. Whacko's they may be, but by God they are my whacko's and I will stand with all of them as the storm the Bastile.

 

[Ernest]

Everyone likes to jump the gun regarding TROLLS. Paul has a goofy account of the Civil War that very few (<5%) historians would agree with. The comments he made were very dumb, and have almost no historical accuracy.

I still support Paul, but I do have to admit that these comments are a little disturbing. I wish he would have avoided answering the question.

I don't know what specifically you are referring to in regards to<5%? I dispute that less then 5% of historians would back Paul up but that is almost beside the point. The idea of there being a better way then spending 600,000+ lives sounds reasonable to me. Also that Lincoln was a tyrant and didn't let the Constitution get in his way is a matter of record although some may not characterize it that way instead justifying what he did in spite of those things. The very things Lincoln did like i.e suspension of Habeas corpus, jailing politicians etc is reminiscent to what is going on with our current administration.

The Southern history books dispute the "accepted" version. Are we supposed to believe that they are totally without merit? That maybe the truth is somewhere in between? Ask yourself this question. If the neocons get their way and if history books are written today from their perspective about the events from 911 to today how do you think the history books would read? How would Bush be portrayed? How would the whole war issue be portrayed? How would "terrorism" the cause, reason and justification be written about?