SwiftVets.com

[ROTC DAD]

Excuse me, but I didn't call you a right-wing wingnut; why do you have to resort to calling me a leftist?

Whether I am or am not has no bearing on the questions which you chose to try to circumvent. And before you go calling people names, you might want to check my appellation.

[sparky]

You know, the wierdest thing about this place is that so many people think they're going to sway anyone by saying the amusing fiction that

"Kerry is a self-admitted war criminal"

I guess when you hang out with so many people who are easily suckered, you just keep playing the sucker game.

[Greenhat]

[sparky]

Greenhat reminds me of that Beverly Hillbillies episode when they thought they were going to battle and put on confederate uniforms.

I don't think anyone is up for anti-Lincoln historical revisionism.

[Greenhat]

[sparky]

Seriously, if you want be in a party that considers Lincoln evil, there are a few remnants of Thurmond's States Rights Party that occasionally field a candidate. Justice Roy Moore might share your sentiments, or I wouldn't be surprised if he did.

Or maybe you could just work to further separate the GOP from its putative roots as "the party of Lincoln."

[Greenhat]

Where did I ever say Lincoln was evil? You really are basically incapable of actually reading what is written, aren't you?

ROTC Dad has made a statement about the current administration. There happen to be parrallels to the Lincoln administration. So, I'm curious if he considers Lincoln a war criminal? Or, if he just hasn't bothered to think through what he says (kind of like you, Sparky).
_________________
De Oppresso Liber

[ROTC DAD]

I'm sure if we went to certain parts of the South, we could find people who believe Lincoln is a War Criminal. But that's just being facetious on my part.

To answer your question; No, I don't. But your stretching in your parallelims here. First, Lincoln was trying to save the United States of America, he did not invade and occupy another country (though, again, we could probably find people in the South who believe he did).

Second, Lincoln did not deliberately set out to torture anyone, while it is becoming apparent that the systemic torture and mistreatment of prisoners in what is being called the American Gulag was deliberate and intended.

Third, as far as I can tell Lincoln never gave up US secrets simply for political gain.

Btw, yesterday, Wednesday, a Baltimore paper quoted Colin Powell as saying that the President was indeed aware of what was going on in Abu Ghraib and elsewhere as the State Department was giving him memos on it.

But the question becomes, why does it even matter if I think Lincoln was a war criminal or not. I can't vote for Lincoln (well, I could, but why would I). But Bush and Kerry are here now. If Bush is a war criminal, should I vote for him?

[carpro]

[ROTC DAD]

carpro;

Don't you think that if the Administration wanted to find out who these two high-ranking members of the Administration were they could have found out by now? Its been 9 months since the investigation began, and we still don't know? I think you may be a little naive here.

[sparky]

I went back to see where Greenhat wrote that Lincoln was "evil" and he's right! He never said Lincoln was evil. He said that:

Abraham Lincoln ignored the US Constitution and US Code in the conduct by which he waged the Civil War.

Abraham Lincoln was President of the United States when US Troops fired into crowds of civilians, draft protestors, in New York City. Or are you unaware of that?

Abraham Lincoln was the President of the United States when the worst atrocities recorded by American troops happened.

Abraham Lincoln was President of the United States when Sherman made his March to the Sea, a campaign that many would label an atrocity in itself.

So I'll say it again:

Seriously, if you want be in a party that speaks ill of Lincoln, there are a few remnants of Thurmond's States Rights Party that occasionally field a candidate. Justice Roy Moore might share your sentiments, or I wouldn't be surprised if he did.

Or maybe you could just work to further separate the GOP from its putative roots as "the party of Lincoln." I never really thought it was fair for today's GOP to stake a claim to Lincoln.

I think that it's liberals who carry his proud legacy today.

[Navy_Navy_Navy]

[carpro]

[sparky]

I looked those links over, NNN, and concluded that the Democrats are definitely not the party of racism, especially of the variety that longs for "old Dixie."

At one time people like Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, and Trent Lott were Democrats, but when LBJ betrayed the "lost cause" of the antibellum south, they switched parties.

As LBJ said, "We just handed the south to the GOP" when he signed the Civil Rights Act. Ironic that a Democrat would attempt to finish up the task of reconstruction, isn't it?

This isn't to say that rightwingers like Nazis don't try to gain the support of the masses. Hitler himself knew that to gain power he'd need to toss a few crumbs to the working class, including using the term "socialist" in the title of his new party.

But nazis and rightwingers lie and Hitler was as much a "socialist" as China is a "people's republic" or Pol Pot's Cambodia was the "Democratic Republic of Kampuchea" or Vladimir Zhirinovsky's party was liberal and democratic.

After all, if Hitler was a "socialist" why didn't he nationalize any major industry? Why did industrialists facilitate his rise to power? Why did he ban labor unions? Why did Bayer, Krupps, and I.G. Farben make so many industrialists so much richer? Why was one of Hitler's defining qualities his opposition to Bolshevism?

[ROTC DAD]

carpro;

I apologize; I made an assumption. Btw, I don't think you're a dummy. Naive, maybe