Ron Paul says Lincoln was wrong to fight the Civil War. Do you agree? AOL poll
h ttp://news.aol.com/political-machine/2007/12/26/hot-seat-lincoln-wrong-to-fight-civil-war/?ncid=NWS00010000000001
New Poll up on AOL.
Canīt see it...
KEEP THE REVOLUTION ALIVE! RUN FOR OFFICE!
Strange. Works for me?
A much better question to have asked would be "do you understand the argument Ron Paul gave against having fought the Civil War."
Heading out to campaign for Ron Paul? Read my guide and leave constructive criticism.
Yeah, stupid polls. F U Frank!Originally Posted by Ron LOL
Sadly, I think many people have an embarrassingly poor grasp of history and I assume many will read this poll question and think, "Agree = I am pro-slavery, Disagree = I am against slavery"
Are people as uneducated as I think they might be? I hope not.
Member #43 of Ron Paul's Campaign for Liberty
Smallest Political Quiz
Judge Napolitano on Ron Paul
Constitutional Republic
A Republic If You Can Keep It
Ron Paul in 1988
In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.
-Mark Twain
Leave it to AOL.
Ron Paul likely cemented some good Southern support with his comments about Abe.
Dems get to show how skeered they are of RP in this poll.
Of course we should not have killed our own kind! There were many better options, like PEACE.
C'mon guys, some of these states are wising up. I'm surprised with Maine, and the Virgina's are at the tipping point, South Carolina too.
Go vote!
They were educated by the people who fought the civil war and won it. That's the problem.
This makes me livid.
A couple of points:
1. If we accept that it's ok to kill 600,000 americans for anyone's moral grounds, we're screwed as a nation already.
2. The North invaded the South (which legally seceded) to avoid having to compete with a neighboring nation whose economy was agricultural with NO LABOR COST. It was economic, not moral. (Hint: you can't compete against someone if you have to pay a dollar to sell something and they don't have to pay anything to sell it.)
The fact that AOL is playing off of the simple, false assumption: "without the civil war there would still be slaves." and then publishing it and encouraging that (faulty) premise.... well..... that's no where near journalism. It'll get the exact result we would expect.
They might've just as well asked "So-and-so said blacks should still be slaves. Do you agree?"
It doesn't work for me. At the bottom of the map area it says "awaiting response from Ron Paul."
What are you guys seeing?
Why can't everybody else leave everybody else alone?
Anyone with a decent understanding of history will tell you that the civil war was not necessary.
Go Farther Forward. Your source for self sufficient living. http://fartherforward.com
Which is probably about 2% of the public
Ron Paul is 110% correct here!
The civil war was Lincoln's war.
He would rather have 100's of thousands of americans dead than to allow the south to secede. Our history books are filled with spin and propaganda, telling us that the war was about slavery, and painting Lincoln as an abolitionist hero.
That's great and all, gents, but can one of you try to SEE the poll and tell me if it is working for you?
Pretty please?
Why can't everybody else leave everybody else alone?
It's working here, using Firefox.That's great and all, gents, but can one of you try to SEE the poll and tell me if it is working for you?
Pretty please?
Yes, Ron was correct, Lincoln was wrong. Too bad Booth didn't take him out year earlier.
__________________________________________________ ________________
"A politician will do almost anything to keep their job, even become a patriot" - Hearst
Man, I don't know what to think of Booth.
Thanks.
Why can't everybody else leave everybody else alone?
Better poll: Should the South have purchased more repeating rifles.
I say yes.
Well, subsistence level compensation is not "no labor cost" (in fact it's not that much less than what free proletariats were paid at the time).
But the bulk of your point is correct, the war was about preserving a united government and tariffs, rather than moral values, and a truly great president would have avoided it rather than bow to political pressure.
Paul on Bill Maher a while back, on the civil war, slavery, manbearpig, and other food for thought.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xo6KIusCBoU
Reportedly, Maher later apologized for not going into more important issues when he had ron on again.
Last edited by OptionsTrader; 12-26-2007 at 11:58 AM.
Member #43 of Ron Paul's Campaign for Liberty
Smallest Political Quiz
Judge Napolitano on Ron Paul
Constitutional Republic
A Republic If You Can Keep It
Ron Paul in 1988
In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.
-Mark Twain
wtf?!?! Don't say stuff like that in a public forum!!
I love how the "deep south" states have the majority being the Yes while everyone else says (for the most part) No.
I am surprised that we're getting so many "Yes" replies, though...
Yeah, I was pretty pleasantly surprised that like 25% of my northeastern state is still capable of independent thought. I wonder where they are hiding.
good to see Louisiana knows more about the civil war, and that it wasn't mainly about slavery, but about states rights. And had alot to do with cotton and goods from the south.
"Business as usual is not on the menu, folks...we're either going to into an era of immense resource scarcity, regimentation, governmental interference in our lives, tremendous propagandistic efforts to make us do one thing or another, or were going to pull the plug on scientism and its stooges and the institutions which feed [it]."-Terence McKenna
The poll is going to be a cluster$#@! for this very reason. I really wish they'd do something to clarify the question that's being asked...
Heading out to campaign for Ron Paul? Read my guide and leave constructive criticism.
Why don't we ask the neo-cons if they think it would have been better to have pushed beyond Jerusalem with the first crusade in 1099 In the West's first global war on terror?
What happened - happened. Yes the war was un-neccissary as the US could have purchased the slaves, but it would have been more complicated than that considering the entire agricultural system was based upon the plantation method and the war was more about ecconomics than slavery (even though slavery was integral to the southern ecconomy). The europeans did end slavery and basically replaced it with cheap labor in third world countries where their plantation systems were located, in most cases a fate worse than slavery for the individuals.
I guess what I am really saying is RP's point is that there is always another way besides war - I totally agree, but without the US civil war we would more than likely be two (or more) countries right now - so mistake or not - the question is irrelevent.
I wouldn't play that game with AOL.
(FYI- If the war was about slavery why didn't Lincoln free the slaves at the begining of the war instead of the end? ...and why did he only free the ones in southern states and not border states?)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us