Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: longnshort who wrote (12229)	12/11/2009 7:07:03 AM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 42652

The North started the war, so lincoln started a Civil war, why didn't he just let the South go their own way The lengths folks can go to cover up a mistake... You were talking about fomenting a "civil war" to fight back against a government that would fine/jail you. You chose the terminology and I followed suit. What you were talking about was an insurrection, a rebellion against the federal authority headed by Obama. Lincoln was hardly rebelling against authority. He was THE authority, for heaven's sake. The South seceded. Secession is a form of rebellion. Confederate soldiers were known as Johnny Rebs. I think they would be pretty annoyed to see you framing Lincoln as the "rebel." Lincoln, in true authoritarian fashion, moved to put down the rebellion. Ergo, any analogy that conjoins you and your cohort rebelling against authority with Lincoln imposing ultimate authority, is exactly bass ackwards, as inapt as you can get. As for why he didn't let the South go its own way, you must be kidding. Authorities don't suffer rebellions lightly. Even a squish like Obama would put down your proposed rebellion. That's what authorities do.