Who is the most overrated president in US history?

[Benzoate]

Uh… you cited the Dilorenzo guy again… I thought you were properly embarrassed about it, but I guess you're just ignoring the fact that using him as a foundation makes it impossible for us to take you seriously?

⚛​

I never said I hated him. Just because he may be a southerner doesn't warrant me for discrediting his sources. Don't knocked something unless you actually read what he has to say and then you are obligated to give him the proper criticism you think he deserves.

 

[Benzoate]

To put it a different way, if you have no interest in ensuring that you're working off of unbiased sources, we have no reason to believe that you're interested in talking about reality in particular rather than just looking for the axe that's the most fun to grind.

⚛​

Have you examined all the other sources I've listed. You haven't shown me any sources that disprove or dispute my claims.

 

[turbo]

You have made the claim that Lincoln ordered the slaughter of defenseless Southerners. Take a big deep breath and provide specific references or apologize. You cannot provide evidence for the former, and you apparently haven't the guts nor integrity for the latter.

 

[Benzoate]

You have made the claim that Lincoln ordered the slaughter of defenseless Southerners. Take a big deep breath and provide specific references or apologize. You cannot provide evidence for the former, and you apparently haven't the guts nor integrity for the latter.

I will not apologized for something that is factual. Abe allowed southerners to be slaughter by General Sherman and his troops and he did nothing to cease General Sherman actions against the the southerners in the carolinas and georgia. To say that Abe is not responsible for his general actions is ludicrous. Immediately, Abe should have had General sherman removed as a general and had general sherman arrested for committing crimes against humanity. Therefore Abe, is responsible for the massacre of tens and thousands of people.

 

[Evo]

I have to side with Benzoate here, the "facts" as we are led to believe them are unfortunately inaccurate. I don't have the time right now to look up and post the information on Lincoln right now, but based on my historical knowledge, Lincoln is not the saint he is made out to be. Although decisons that are made in times of war, in hindsight are atrocious, they were for the good of the "cause" at the time.

Did you know that Betsy Ross didn't make the first flag? That's a fib made up by a descendant of hers, the person that made the first flag as far as we can validate was Mary Pickering.

 

[turbo]

I will not apologized for something that is factual. Abe allowed southerns to be slaughter by General Sherman and his troops and he did nothing to cease General Sherman actions against the the southerns in the carolinas and georgia. To say that Abe is not responsible for his general actions is ludicrous. Immediately, Abe should have had General sherman removed as a general and had general sherman arrested for committing crimes against humanity. Therefore Abe, is responsible for the massacre of tens and thousands of people.

You have made the claim that Lincoln ordered the slaughter of defenseless Southerners. Take a big deep breath and provide specific references or apologize. You cannot provide evidence for the former, and you apparently haven't the guts nor integrity for the latter.

You have not made any reference to support your claim. It is likely that that your claim is a fantasy. You can educate us ignoramuses if you choose, or you can slink away.

 

[Evo]

Before I go to bed -

Why did the Federal army decide to attack and capture Atlanta?

Sherman believed that the capture of Atlanta would help Lincoln regain popularity and win re-elections. For that reason, Sherman attacked Atlanta.

But he didn't stop there, after Atlanta was captured, he decided to burn it to the ground when he left.

http://web.li.gatech.edu/~rdrury/700/write/civwar/Why.html

There were inumerous atrocities commited during the cival war.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

I never said I hated him.

You never said anything about him. You refused to even acknowledge that he was a Southern historian until the third time I mentioned it, at which point you've now told me to shut up.

Just because he may be a southerner doesn't warrant me for discrediting his sources. Don't knocked something unless you actually read what he has to say and then you are obligated to give him the proper criticism you think he deserves.

So I'm not allowed to point out that Dilorenzo is a partisan to an organization with the stated goal of re-establishing a Southern nation, a successor to the Confederacy?

And I guess I have to read his entire book before I can ask you questions like whether or not he or any of those other authors actually says that Lincoln ordered the massacre of civilians, or whether any of them said that Lincoln was like Saddam Hussein?

Did you know that Betsy Ross didn't make the first flag? That's a fib made up by a descendant of hers, the person that made the first flag as far as we can validate was Mary Pickering.

No disrespect meant Evo, but I know that Betsy Ross didn't make the flag and that George Washington didn't really chop down a cherry tree. My knowledge of the Civil War isn't based on stuff I've heard or on a high school textbook, it's from having taken a full semester college course specifically on the Civil War taught by a history professor who specialized in it, including texts written by both Southerners and Northerners, plus a fair amount of reading and research on my own, including a fair number of Lincoln's own writings and speeches.

I don't consider Lincoln to have been a saint but he demonstrated a great deal of intelligence, political sagacity, humility, and a number of other virtues. This is a fairly substantial charge - that he ordered the slaughter of civilians - and I'm pretty sure that I would have come across something like that were it true.

So it's quite reasonable of turbo and I to press Benzoate for a direct citation on that. But so far all he's managed to come up with is basically “lots of people died during the Civil War.”

⚛​

 

[Benzoate]

You never said anything about him. You refused to even acknowledge that he was a Southern historian until the third time I mentioned it, at which point you've now told me to shut up.



So I'm not allowed to point out that Dilorenzo is a partisan to an organization with the stated goal of re-establishing a Southern nation, a successor to the Confederacy?

And I guess I have to read his entire book before I can ask you questions like whether or not he or any of those other authors actually says that Lincoln ordered the massacre of civilians, or whether any of them said that Lincoln was like Saddam Hussein?



No disrespect meant Evo, but I know that Betsy Ross didn't make the flag and that George Washington didn't really chop down a cherry tree. My knowledge of the Civil War isn't based on stuff I've heard or on a high school textbook, it's from having taken a full semester college course specifically on the Civil War taught by a history professor who specialized in it, including texts written by both Southerners and Northerners, plus a fair amount of reading and research on my own, including a fair number of Lincoln's own writings and speeches.

I don't consider Lincoln to have been a saint but he demonstrated a great deal of intelligence, political sagacity, humility, and a number of other virtues. This is a fairly substantial charge - that he ordered the slaughter of civilians - and I'm pretty sure that I would have come across something like that were it true.

So it's quite reasonable of turbo and I to press Benzoate for a direct citation on that. But so far all he's managed to come up with is basically “lots of people died during the Civil War.”

⚛​

BTW I'm a girl , so get my gender right. I did posts my citations. You have not bother to evaluate and research my citations thoroughly. And the citations I list are not just from southern authors. Lincoln was not very respectful of the constitution because he jailed tens and thousands of people who opposed his policies. That does not make a person a great leader. That makes him a dictator , plain and simple . Your professor at your university is probably liberal; I say that because a poll was taken and it showed that most professors at university are liberal and I think like 95 % of journalists in the media say they are liberal. But There are many great historians and journalists who my be partisan, but just because their moral beliefs are partisans does not mean their research has to be partisan. Not everyone who is part of a political party will push a political agenda on you. Ron Paul is an example of this because he frequently votes against his policitical party. Milton Friedman was a self-prescribed libertarian , but he made a great documentary about our monopolistic public education system. The point I am trying to get across is, even though there are people are are part of a political party, there are a lot of people who apply primarily logic and rational thought when making claims about certain ideas.

 

[Evo]

You never said anything about him. You refused to even acknowledge that he was a Southern historian until the third time I mentioned it, at which point you've now told me to shut up.



So I'm not allowed to point out that Dilorenzo is a partisan to an organization with the stated goal of re-establishing a Southern nation, a successor to the Confederacy?

And I guess I have to read his entire book before I can ask you questions like whether or not he or any of those other authors actually says that Lincoln ordered the massacre of civilians, or whether any of them said that Lincoln was like Saddam Hussein?



No disrespect meant Evo, but I know that Betsy Ross didn't make the flag and that George Washington didn't really chop down a cherry tree. My knowledge of the Civil War isn't based on stuff I've heard or on a high school textbook, it's from having taken a full semester college course specifically on the Civil War taught by a history professor who specialized in it, including texts written by both Southerners and Northerners, plus a fair amount of reading and research on my own, including a fair number of Lincoln's own writings and speeches.

I don't consider Lincoln to have been a saint but he demonstrated a great deal of intelligence, political sagacity, humility, and a number of other virtues. This is a fairly substantial charge - that he ordered the slaughter of civilians - and I'm pretty sure that I would have come across something like that were it true.

So it's quite reasonable of turbo and I to press Benzoate for a direct citation on that. But so far all he's managed to come up with is basically “lots of people died during the Civil War.”

⚛​

Ok, I admit that I haven't had a chance to read through the previous posts to see how the views were presented. You're right, they are skewed to push the view that their weren't considerations given for the the fact that there was a terrible war. Attrocities were commited on both sides and Lincoln was not innocent of ordering these things, or at least allowing those he appointed to commit these things. I'm not saying he's wrong, as I said "Although decisons that are made in times of war, in hindsight are atrocious, they were for the good of the "cause" at the time."

I'm sick, you have a handle on it CQ, carry on.

 

[Benzoate]

Ok, I admit that I haven't had a chance to read through the previous posts to see how the views were presented. You're right, they are skewed to push the view that their weren't considerations given for the the fact that there was a terrible war. Attrocities were commited on both sides and Lincoln was not innocent of ordering these things, or at least allowing those he appointed to commit these things. I'm not saying he's wrong, as I said "Although decisons that are made in times of war, in hindsight are atrocious, they were for the good of the "cause" at the time."

I'm sick, you have a handle on it CQ, carry on.

I wasn't acknowledging that the south did not commit any atrocities, only that Abraham Lincoln was not the emancipator of slaves everyone , from physics forums users to american school teachers . It was actually the 13th ,14th and 15 amendments that freed the slaves. Did you know that abolotionists put pressure on the Lincoln adminstration to emancipate slaves. Look at the documents I've listed below:

Document 3: Address on Colonization to a Committee of Colored Men, August 14, 1862

Document 4: Letter of Reply to Horace Greeley, August 22, 1862

 

[Benzoate]

Captainquasor , since you and I are in disagreement , I would liked to hear your own assessments of the Lincoln adminstration and the policies it administer .

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Oops... just got done writing this and I see your response to me there Evo, thank you. But since I wrote it anyways, here it is...

But he didn't stop there, after Atlanta was captured, he decided to burn it to the ground when he left.

Yes - as turbo and I said above, there was quite a bit of destruction of Southern infrastructure. Yes, they burned down cities and burned fields of crops so that the South would have to spend resources rebuilding and could not feed its armies on the march.

They also tore up railroad tracks, and you may have heard of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman%27s_neckties" - they would take the sections of rail, heat them on a bonfire, and twist them around trees so that the railroad could not be reassembled until the rails were melted down and recast. This prevented the Southern armies from moving troops and supplies around and between the different theatres of the war.

But Benzoate is saying that that Lincoln ordered the Union Army to burn down and pillage the Southern cities - like the Vikings did, like European armies would during the Hundred Years' War and most of the rest of the time too - sack the city, loot it for valuables and cart them off before burning it. But from what I've read that did not happen, if they were out to destroy infrastructure that's what they did, they generally didn't steal stuff and if they did, it was rare and it wasn't because they had orders to do it.

Both the Northern and Southern forces would seize food and supplies, not just from the enemy but from civilians on their own side when they were out of touch with their supply lines (as Sherman was during the March to the Sea, for example, or Lee's armies when they raided up into Pennsylvania). And a remarkable thing was that both the Northerners and the Southerners would frequently pay for what they took. The farmer or whoever didn't get any choice whether or not to sell but they gave him some money. (I'm sure the Northern farmers weren't very thrilled, though, at getting paid in Confederate dollars that shortly turned out to be worthless.)

There were inumerous atrocities commited during the cival war.

There were some atrocities - like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleeding_Kansas" .

But many of the things that are considered atrocities by modern standards - torture, slaughter of civilians, shooting or executing enemy troops who have surrendered - did not happen on a large scale to my knowledge, compared to any of the Indian / Native American wars or most European wars of the time. And this was especially unusual because of the scale of the conflict - I think that the Union Army estimated by some at around 2 million men at its height is believed to have been the largest Army assembled in human history up to that point.

Evo, if you're skeptical or curious about any of the things I've said above which I've written without digging up references, I'd be happy to give it a go, just ask.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

BTW I'm a girl , so get my gender right.

I apologize, I should have looked at your profile.

I did posts my citations. You have not bother to evaluate and research my citations thoroughly.

You posted something more along the lines of a bibliography. When we ask you for citations we're asking you to quote or link to a paragraph or page that says something similar to the claims you're making - particularly about the ordering of slaughter or pillaging. It would also be helpful if you could give a more specific example of an occasion on which you think he ordered the slaughter of innocent civilians or ordered the pillaging of towns.

Your professor at your university is probably liberal;

Actually, he was a hard-as-tacks Benedictine monk. Anyone who knew him and heard you say that about him would laugh out loud.

But it doesn't have anything to do with whether what you have said here is true or false.

The point I am trying to get across is, even though there are people are are part of a political party, there are a lot of people who apply primarily logic and rational thought when making claims about certain ideas.

Well, it's coming across as though you're just making stuff up about Abraham Lincoln.

⚛​

 

[LightbulbSun]

I just want to chime in here. I did some quick research and found something which I think substantiates one of Benzoate's claims about "Abraham Lincoln not being the emancipator of slaves."

Northern leaders like Lincoln viewed the prospect of a new Southern nation, with control over the Mississippi River and the West, as unacceptable. This led to the outbreak of the Civil War, which spelled the end for chattel slavery in America. However, in August of 1862 Lincoln replied to editor Horace Greeley stating his objective was to save the Union and not to either save or destroy slavery. He went on to say that if he could save the Union without freeing a single slave, he would do it. Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation of 1863 was a reluctant gesture, that proclaimed freedom for slaves within the Confederacy, although not those in strategically important border states or the rest of the Union. However, the proclamation made the abolition of slavery an official war goal and it was implemented as the Union captured territory from the Confederacy. Slaves in many parts of the south were freed by Union armies or when they simply left their former owners. Many joined the Union Army as workers or troops, and many more fled to Northern cities. -http://www.civilwar.com/content/category/38/186/70/"

 

[CaptainQuasar]

I just want to chime in here. I did some quick research and found something which I think substantiates one of Benzoate's claims about "Abraham Lincoln not being the emancipator of slaves."

Yes, he did say that. It's also true that he described the emancipation as a tactic of war - in the same way that destroying Southern cities and crops and the naval blockade of Southern ports was to deprive and disrupt the Confederate Army, if the slaves in Southern states were emancipated by the Union and they came to believe that the Confederacy might be defeated, they would leave the fields and drastically reduce the production of Southern plantations.

In my opinion, if you asked Abraham Lincoln at the time whether he thought he was the Great Emancipator of the Slaves, he would sincerely say that he was not and repeat something like the quote Lightbulb presents. He was very humble; President Eisenhower told http://www.eisenhowermemorial.org/speeches/19540423%20Remarks%20at%20the%20Birthplace%20of%20Abraham%20Lincoln.htm" about him:

Once he called upon General McClellan, and the President went over to the General's house and General McClellan decided he did not want to see the President, and went to bed.

Lincoln's friends criticized him severely for allowing a mere General to treat him that way. And he said, “All I want out of General McClellan is a victory, and if to hold his horse will bring it, I will gladly hold his horse.”​

As in, he would stand there and hold the reins of the guy's horse, like a stable boy. The President of the United States.

I think he had this and many other virtues. So that's the primary reason why I'm pretty aggravated that Benzoate has apparently offhandedly claimed that he ordered the massacre of civilians and the pillaging of Southern cities, not told us where she got that, and not mentioned that she's been reading books by a “The Confederacy will rise again!” Southern nationalist, until I sleuthed it out and twisted her arm into admitting it.

⚛​

 

[russ_watters]

There was also a declared war. The Constitution gives broad Presidential powers in a time of war.

Is this what you're defending? Okay, got it. I will be quoting you on that one.

This thread has gone so far I don't want to get back into it, but just to make sure here -- you know that second quote wasn't from me, right? You listed after a quote from me and didn't have who it came from cited in it.

I will say this, though - that first line is a very strange thing to see any American, much less you, writing.

Also, just for the record, Lincoln makes both my top 5 and bottom 5 Presidents list. I don't agree with even half of what Benzoate said in his first post (and most of the rest of the thread is just crap), but the basic point that people gloss-over the more ominous things Lincoln did during the Civil War is sound.

 

[Astronuc]

I thought it would be interesting to start a thread on who do you think is the most overrated president in the history of the United states . I'd put my money on Abraham Lincoln. He makes george w bush look like mother theresa, before George Bush tried to act like a saint. (i.e, giving money to africa) He is a George Wallace, Benito Mussulino and Saddam Huessein rolled into one package. The man was an absolute tyrant. He placed people in prison who spoke out against his policies, and he order troops to burned and pillage southern towns. The only good thing he ever did was free slaves; After he freed the slaves he wanted to deport blacks because he believe blacks would not assimilate to western culture. In to think that we used to celebrate this tyrant's birthday. What an awful human being he was
Well, that's my opinion. What's yours?

GW Bush is no Mother Teresa, nor does Lincoln make Bush look like Mother Teresa. One is ignoring the slaughter of innocent Iraqis, which Rumsfeld and others have dismissed as collateral damage.

http://www.americancivilwar.com/documents/lincoln_inaugural_1.html

The national upheaval of secession was a grim reality at Abraham Lincoln's inauguration. Jefferson Davis had been inaugurated as the President of the Confederacy two weeks earlier. The former Illinois Congressman had arrived in Washington by a secret route to avoid danger, and his movements were guarded by General Winfield Scott's soldiers.

http://www.americancivilwar.com/civil_war_summary.html
Lincoln was in office about 5-6 weeks when Confederate forces fired on Ft. Sumter.

March 4 Abraham Lincoln inaugurated 16th President of the U. S.
April 12-13 Bombardment and surrender of Fort Sumter
April 15 President Lincoln calls for 75,000 volunteers
April 17 Virginia secedes

Looking at the maps, the Confederates did in fact attack the North - Maryland (1862) and Maryland and Pennsylvania (1863). Remember Gettysburg.

How about those Raiders? Not the one's from Oakland, but those of Mosby, Morgan, Quantrill, . . . Would one argue that Jefferson Davis or Robert E. Lee ordered those folks to pillage, plunder and murder innocent civilians? Seems both sides employed similar tactics.

Grant and Sherman, as field commanders, did their job - which was to win a war against an insurrection.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman's_March_to_the_Sea

Sherman implemented "scorched earth" policies; he and Union Army commander Ulysses S. Grant believed that the Civil War would end only if the Confederacy's strategic, economic, and psychological capacities for warfare were decisively broken.

They employed historical techiques, which the allies repeated in WWII - vis-a-vis saturation bombing. The US employed saturation bombing in Vietnam. And it appears civilian areas were targeted during the invasion of Iraq.

Isn't Lincoln like the only president we have a statue of? I could be wrong Notice in a lot of communist/totalitarian countries, they always have a statue of their leader?

There are statues of various US presidents -
http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/1996/2/1996_2_117.shtml

Kansas to put Eisenhower back on Capitol Hill
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4179/is_20021110/ai_n11790722

The Washington Monument
http://www.tourofdc.org/monuments/washington-monument/

This temple was to be an American pantheon, a repository for statues of Presidents and national heroes, containing a colossal statue of George Washington.

I believe there are numerous busts.

Please retain a modicum of civility even when disagreeing. Please cite source of factual statements.

I do not justify the conduct of war. War is self-defeating and is a complete failure on the part of humanity. War is not honorable or glorious. But war is a historical reality.

 

[turbo]

The claim has been made by Benzoate that Lincoln ordered the slaughter of innocent civilians. This is not true, and she will find NO citations to support the claim, even in the most derogatory biographies of Lincoln.

Certainly, there will be confrontations between the military and the civilian population during war. When troops on the move outrun their provisions, they will find and take provisions anywhere they can find them, including stores, farms, private homes, warehouses,etc. If a town is of strategic value and the army does not have the manpower to hold it, they may raze it to deny that position to the enemy before they move on. Unless they could hold the docks and warehouses of a deep-water port or the depots, rails, and bridges of a railroad line, they would try to destroy those facilities, as well, before they moved on. Such actions were not limited to the Union army as I have pointed out. The irregular Confederate cavalry units (frequently called "raiders") of the Western theater were effective fighters and they managed to destroy many assets that were of value to the Union troops while themselves lacking the manpower to take and hold those assets. They often provisioned themselves by raiding stores, farms, towns, etc, even while they were in Confederate-held territory. These are tactics of war and they are not micro-managed by the president (either Lincoln or Davis).

If you want to point to atrocities, you need go no further than Quantrill's slaughter of 200 men, women, and children in Lawrence, KS. His ruthless actions were a black mark on the Confederacy, but his effectiveness against Union forces made him too valuable to rein in. Should we hold Jefferson Davis personally responsible for Quantill's murders? I think not.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

This thread has gone so far I don't want to get back into it, but just to make sure here -- you know that second quote wasn't from me, right? You listed after a quote from me and didn't have who it came from cited in it.

I will say this, though - that first line is a very strange thing to see any American, much less you, writing.

Also, just for the record, Lincoln makes both my top 5 and bottom 5 Presidents list. I don't agree with even half of what Benzoate said in his first post (and most of the rest of the thread is just crap), but the basic point that people gloss-over the more ominous things Lincoln did during the Civil War is sound.

Yes, I cited that first quote because you apparently defend it. You are saying that you can't tell the difference between Hitler and Lincoln?

As for a strange line, you clearly haven't been paying attention. I have defended Constitutional law from day 1 here. The difference is that there was a real war with the union in jeapardy and the credible threat of troops marching on Washington, not six guys with box knives and an undeclared war that has no clear definition for victory. If China was invading the West Coast, then too I would support the Constitution and the powers given the President to protect the nation. On the other hand, Bush has sought enternal powers in a pseudowar that has no end.

 

[Benzoate]

This thread has gone so far I don't want to get back into it, but just to make sure here -- you know that second quote wasn't from me, right? You listed after a quote from me and didn't have who it came from cited in it.

I will say this, though - that first line is a very strange thing to see any American, much less you, writing.

Also, just for the record, Lincoln makes both my top 5 and bottom 5 Presidents list. I don't agree with even half of what Benzoate said in his first post (and most of the rest of the thread is just crap), but the basic point that people gloss-over the more ominous things Lincoln did during the Civil War is sound.

So you disagree with me that Lincoln had tens and thousands of men who disagree with him thrown in jail ? Hundreds and hundreds of news papers where shut down or closed who spoke out against Lincoln's policies. Lincoln invaded the southern states without the consent of congress even though the southern states did not attack Lincoln. Like it or not , Lincoln made some not so flattering statements about my ancestors and he wanted to deport my Ancestors to Liberia . Thank you John wilkes booth for shooting that crank. Like it or not , at least 620,000 soldiers and 80,000 civilians lost their lives for an unnecessary war. And I'm supposed to worshiped this guy when he ignored and violated my constitution severally times during his presidency. Speeches and speaking eloquently to the public does not make a person a good president. Its the actions of the president I truly care about that will affect the welfare of my nation.

Ron Paul '08!

 

[Evo]

So you disagree with me that Lincoln had tens and thousands of men who disagree with him thrown in jail ? Hundreds and hundreds of news papers where shut down or closed who spoke out against Lincoln's policies. Lincoln invaded the southern states without the consent of congress even though the southern states did not attack Lincoln. Like it or not , Lincoln made some not so flattering statements about my ancestors and he wanted to deport my Ancestors to Liberia . Thank you John wilkes booth for shooting that crank. Like it or not , at least 620,000 soldiers and 80,000 civilians lost their lives for an unnecessary war. And I'm supposed to worshiped this guy when he ignored and violated my constitution severally times during his presidency. Speeches and speaking eloquently to the public does not make a person a good president. Its the actions of the president I truly care about that will affect the welfare of my nation.

Ron Paul '08!

Sorry,now that I've read your posts, I have to agree with the others. Lincoln wasn't a saint, but he surely was not guilty of the things you have accused him of. That was my mistake, looking at just one post of historical references and not knowing what else you had posted, I stand corrected.

You're black and you suport Ron Paul? You do know that the KKK and David Duke endorse him for his anti black beliefs?

 

[Benzoate]

Sorry,now that I've read your posts, I have to agree with the others. Lincoln wasn't a saint, but he surely was not guilty of the things you have accused him of. That was my mistake, looking at just one post of historical references and not knowing what else you had posted, I stand corrected.

You're black and you suport Ron Paul? You do know that the KKK and David Duke endorse him for his anti black beliefs?

There is no other candidate like Ron Paul. You think I'm supposed to support Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton? I did not want to go there, but that a very condescending remarke you just made. Just because David Duke endorses ron paul does not mean ron paul accepts the endorsement. There are black people working on his campaign. By your line of reasoning , you shouldn't vote for obama because he is a descendant of of jefferson davis, the president of the C.S.A. who probably supported slavery You probably one of those people who thinks blacks are I bet you expect me to vote democrat just because I black. Well I got news for you . I'm no sheep . I looked at the issues not the political party. Ron paul is the only candidate that mentioned about the inequalities in the prison system, where crack users received harsher sentences than cocaine users. Why would I support any of those other non-sensical candidates like Barack Obama who isn't even explicit about his plans to withdraw troops from iraq, like the other robotic candidates. Ron paul said he would immediately withdraw troops from iraq. And yes , as president his executive privileges would allow him to withdraw troops from Iraq.

 

[Benzoate]

Sorry,now that I've read your posts, I have to agree with the others. Lincoln wasn't a saint, but he surely was not guilty of the things you have accused him of. That was my mistake, looking at just one post of historical references and not knowing what else you had posted, I stand corrected.

You're black and you suport Ron Paul? You do know that the KKK and David Duke endorse him for his anti black beliefs?

Can you show explicit citations of Ron paul saying statements that are deemed as anti-black?

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Can you show explicit citations of Ron paul saying statements that are deemed as anti-black?

Via http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/vol16/issue9/pols.paul.side.html":

“Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action.”

“…we are told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers.”

“…University of Texas affirmative action law professor Barbara Jordan is a fraud. Everything from her imitation British accent, to her supposed expertise in law, to her distinguished career in public service, is made up. If there were ever a modern case of the empress without clothes, this is it. She is the archetypical half-educated victimologist, yet her race and sex protect her from criticism.”

(That would be the same http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Jordan" , the black Barbara Jordan, who had the temerity and uppityness to read out indictments against Richard Nixon on the floor of the Congress in the 70's.)

To quote http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=74978161-f730-43a2-91c3-de262573a129" from this January, admittedly a liberal magazine:

“A Special Issue on Racial Terrorism” analyzes the Los Angeles riots of 1992: “Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began. ... What if the checks had never arrived? No doubt the blacks would have fully privatized the welfare state through continued looting. But they were paid off and the violence subsided.”

The November 1990 issue of the Political Report had kind words for David Duke.

This newsletter describes Martin Luther King Jr. as “a world-class adulterer” who “seduced underage girls and boys” and “replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration.”

…

An October 1990 edition of the Political Report ridicules black activists, led by Al Sharpton, for demonstrating at the Statue of Liberty in favor of renaming New York City after Martin Luther King. The newsletter suggests that “Welfaria,” “Zooville,” “Rapetown,” “Dirtburg,” and “Lazyopolis” would be better alternatives--and says, “Next time, hold that demonstration at a food stamp bureau or a crack house.”

These newsletters didn't have any author listed at the time they were published, so of course Paul says that he didn't write them himself. I guess he just allowed things like this to get published in his name, repeatedly, over the course of decades.

And this is only from what people in the press have been able to recover. Paul claims that he's lost all the copies of the other issues of the Reports.

And I wouldn't expect you to vote for Obama just because you're black, Benzoate. I've voted for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Keyes" in the past, a Republican. (Though I'm not black myself, I'm just saying that I don't automatically expect blacks to be Democrats.)

⚛​

 

[Benzoate]

Via http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/vol16/issue9/pols.paul.side.html":

(That would be the same http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Jordan" , the black Barbara Jordan, who had the temerity and uppityness to read out indictments against Richard Nixon on the floor of the Congress in the 70's.)

To quote http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=74978161-f730-43a2-91c3-de262573a129" from this January, admittedly a liberal magazine:

These newsletters didn't have any author listed at the time they were published, so of course Paul says that he didn't write them himself. I guess he just allowed things like this to get published in his name, repeatedly, over the course of decades.

And this is only from what people in the press have been able to recover. Paul claims that he's lost all the copies of the other issues of the Reports.

And I wouldn't expect you to vote for Obama just because you're black, Benzoate. I've voted for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Keyes" in the past, a Republican. (Though I'm not black myself, I'm just saying that I don't automatically expect blacks to be Democrats.)

⚛​

Just because he supports affirmative action doesn't make him anti-black. I don't support affirmative action because it is very condescending towards blacks , hispanics , native americans and women; and it excludes asians. And those articles you quote are just smear campaigns. Did even bother to look up the fact that Ron paul has the highest percentages of black votes among the republicans? Bill clinton actually supported a bill that would not end the prison discrepancies between crack users and cocaine user: (i.e. crack users receiving harsher drug penalties than cocaine users) I high proportion of minorities use crack and a high proportion of whites use cocaine. Blacks get 10 years for using crack. Whites get a year for using cocaine. Ron paul acknowledges the prison discrepancies. Until I hear , with my own ears , say racist remarks , then I would call him a racist. BTW, don't newspapers usually record conversations and then put there quotes in a newspaper? If they are so sure that ron paul really made the racists remarks, then why not just play ron paul saying those racist remarks?

Not to mentioned that Ron paul is the only republican who accepted an invitation from tavis smiley to attend a debate on so called 'black issues'

 

[CaptainQuasar]

I don't understand much of your response there, Benzoate. I didn't say anything about his stance on affirmative action. (And anyways - supporting affirmative action would not make him anti-black.)

And I'm not saying that he just made racist remarks out loud. I'm saying he printed racist remarks in a publication with his name on it, without at the time giving the name of anyone else who might've written them.

Those articles I linked to are not “just smear campaigns”, they are entirely factual and as far as I know not disputed by the Ron Paul presidential campaign. Ron Paul does not deny that exactly those words were printed in the Ron Paul Survival Report and the Ron Paul Freedom Report and the other newsletters, he claims that someone else wrote them and that even though he disagrees with them now and disagreed with them at the time, they somehow got into a newsletter with his name at the top of every page.

⚛​

 

[Benzoate]

I don't understand much of your response there, Benzoate. I didn't say anything about his stance on affirmative action. (And anyways - supporting affirmative action would not make him anti-black.)

And I'm not saying that he just made racist remarks out loud. I'm saying he printed racist remarks in a publication with his name on it, without at the time giving the name of anyone else who might've written them.

Those articles I linked to are not “just smear campaigns”, they are entirely factual and as far as I know not disputed by the Ron Paul presidential campaign. Ron Paul does not deny that exactly those words were printed in the Ron Paul Survival Report and the Ron Paul Freedom Report and the other newsletters, he claims that someone else wrote them and that even though he disagrees with them now and disagreed with them at the time, they somehow got into a newsletter with his name at the top of every page.

⚛​

Sorry I thought you said Ron paul was anti-affirmaitve action. My apologies

Like I said before, If doctor paul were truly a racist, he wouldn't have accepted the invitation to the debate at howard university from Tavis Smiley. Nor would he be the republican who has the highest number of votes among black people. Black people are working on Doctor's paul campaign as well. You cannot read everything in print written about someone and accepted as true. Doctor Paul has said many times that those articles written about him are not true. And I believe him . As I said before, if he were a racist , then he would not acknowledge the difference in prison sentencing for crack users and cocaine users.

CaptainQuasor, why do you have a beef with me? You say everything I post was written by crackpots and You haven't even bother to look up my sources nor observed the research methods of the authors I've listed.

 

[Benzoate]

I don't understand much of your response there, Benzoate. I didn't say anything about his stance on affirmative action. (And anyways - supporting affirmative action would not make him anti-black.)

you are twisting my words around. I never said that ron paul is anti-black if he doesn't support affirmative action. I said many so called 'black leaders' and other vermin in the media would label anyone who does not support affirmative action as anti-black.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

CaptainQuasor, why do you have a beef with me? You say everything I post was written by crackpots and You haven't even bother to look up my sources nor observed the research methods of the authors I've listed.

Yes, I do have a beef with you, because you have claimed that Abraham Lincoln was Saddam Hussein and he ordered the slaughter of innocent civilians and ordered the pillaging of Southern towns. Do you really not understand why someone would object to you saying that?

The reason I put up those Ron Paul quotes is to show you that when someone demands citiations, it really is possible to go and get something that actually proves what was said. You asked for something that showed Ron Paul making racist remarks and I went and got you exactly that, published by mainstream news organizations.

I have not said “everything you post was written by crackpots.” At the very beginning I pointed out that one author you mentioned is someone who wants to re-establish the Confederacy. But you ignored that and seemed to be hoping that it would just go away. All you had to say was “Yes, that guy is definitely a biased source, I'm sorry. I should acknowledge his connection to the League of the South when I post things based on what he says.”

And you still haven't provided any proof about these orders you claim Lincoln gave. I know that lots of people died during the Civil War; the stuff you're saying in response doesn't answer my questions. I'm not going to go and read every book you mention just because you feel like you don't even have to tell us when he actually ordered the slaughter of innocent civilians.

If you were wrong about that just say “I'm sorry, I misspoke. He didn't order the slaughter of civilians, I'm just saying that lots of people died from the orders he gave.” That's all you have to do. (Though of course, I would point out that you should then consider anyone who has given orders in any war to be the same as Saddam Hussein.)

⚛​

 

[Evo]

This thread has outlived it's usefulness. Thanks CQ for your work in this thread.