Makes you question WWII after the US sending money to the Nazis in Ukraine.

No it still does not.

OK. So why should Russia get to take it over?

Putin is only restoring the union the same way Lincoln did...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Let's rip this bandaid off right now: Vladimir Putin could not be any more different from Abraham Lincoln. The sooner you stop pretending that they're alike in any way shape or form, the easier a time you'll have in the future.

Yeah. You're ignorant. I never said they were the same in general, but in this one thing, they are.

The south legally seceded from the union and was a separate country. Lincoln subdued them by forced and brought them back into the union. He never "preserved" the Union as is falsely claimed. He "restored" it... Huge difference.

Ukraine was part of the USSR (first letter means Union if you didn't know), but then the USSR broke up legally. Putin, like Lincoln, is trying to restore the Ukraine by force to the USSR.

Those are undeniable facts. I know liberals don't like facts and truth, but they are correct all the same.

Putin is NOT the same as Lincoln (you get something right), but in this manner, they are in fact doing the same thing.

However, it seems in poor taste to compare a condemned dictator (Putin) to arguably one of the best American presidents.

I didn't compare him to Reagan or Washington. Lincoln did some good but was not even in the top 5 of our best presidents. He initiated war on his former countrymen. He freed exactly ZERO slaves (he issued an order to another country where he had no authority). He expanded the role of the centralized federal government in harmful ways we're still suffering from to this day.

yeah, no. Not the greatest at all.

DO NOT IMAGINE THIS IS A DEFENSE OF SLAVERY. It is not.

DO NOT IMAGINE THIS AS A PRO-SOUTH COMMENT. It is not. What's done is done, the CSA was destroyed by force (the only Imperialistic action the Americans have taken) and that's the past.

ONLY READ THIS FOR WHAT IT IS. A accurate look at the history of our country. For better or worse, it was what is was and is what it is. Don't be a leftist and sugar coat history to make it sound better (or worse).

I meant a president that is generally considered to be the best by most people. Was Lincoln without fault? No, but it's still odd to liken him to a man who by all means is much worse. Furthermore, you praise Putin for allegedly being like Lincoln for wanting to recreate the old union (at least in a spiritual sense) but then you go onto criticise Lincoln for preserving the union. Also, to state that there is only one instance of American Imperialism is quite odd when you consider Polk's war with Mexico and Benjamin Harrison's annexation of the Kingdom of Hawaii.

It's simply a fact said tongue in cheek and wow, the vitriol. Facts are stubborn things. And yes, some people think Lincoln was our best president and they are entitled to their misinformed opinion -- probably based on bad high school history vs. simply looking at actual history. But that's ok. Washington and Reagan by far were better than he was.

I never criticized Lincoln for preserving the union. Not once. I pointed out that he did NOT preserve the original pre-war union, he RESTORED the union by CONQUERING an independent neighboring, legally instituted country. Indisputable. His union shrunk when the confederate states legally seceded, but his union (USA) just got smaller... was never in danger of falling apart.

The myth you're clinging too is that the CSA didn't exist and that secession was illegal, which is not true at all. States have always maintained the right to secede since they joined the union. Each state is sovereign and only gives up power to the central government that they all collectively agree to (by majority). But Lincoln started the central gummint overreach we have even worse today.

Perhaps we do have other Imperial aggressions, but Lincolns was the largest by far.

So the CSA should have just been left alone to continue owning Black people for as long as they want?

Slavery was a minor issue of the war. It’s been magnified as the primary cause but states rights were the catalyst. History shows that slavery was a failed economic model and most likely would have been abolished or ended on its own soon enough.

Lincoln freed zero slaves. His order to the csa held no weight as he was not president of the south. Slavery in the north (which was common) was not abolished fully until after the war was over.

And as I said in bold. I’m not a supporter of slavery in any form.

The preservation of slavery was directly mentioned in the Articles of Secession as the casus belli many times. And if it was a failed economic model then on what economy do you think they were expecting to compete with the North, exactly?

However, I may be misreading your original meme as I now realise that you may have meant for it to be a criticism of both men.

Correct

It isn't and you know it.

Wasn't another country. That's why we call it a civil war. (Look it up)

Facts don't agree with you. The CSA and the USA were two separate countries. WE call it the civil war falsely just like we say "Lincoln preserved the union" and "Lincoln freed the slaves". A pure history rewrite. It was really the "War Between the States" or more accurately "The War of Northern Aggression"

But that's history.

The definition of a civil war is not up for negotiation here. If the Confederacy wanted to be recognized as an independent state, there was a clear opportunity to do that by winning the fight that disputed it.

You're right. The definition of Civil War is not in question. Just this was not a Civil War. End of discussion. The south seceded. That was done and complete. They were from that point forward a new country. Not up for debate.

The USA failed to vacate CSA territory of Fort Sumter and started the war. No dispute there.

Just because the USA under Lincoln failed to recognize the CSA (as China does to Taiwan, as the Muslim World -- mostly -- does to Israel), means nothing. CSA was for four years an independent country with its own leader, laws, and currency.

You can twist perceptions. Reality won't budge.

No, see, that's the whole thing: to complete the secession, they would have had to do that thing... you know...

... win.

Which they didn't. They lost. NOT complete. NOT done. The Articles of Secession were as good as toilet paper.

By the way, Puting is the LAST person who'd ever agree with you that any idiot could write "i r my own contree" and get it recognized. Can you even imagine what Russia would look like on a map if we did it your way? It'd be written in Sharpie.

Ain't happening.

It was another country, just one that happened to built on poor ideas of human ownership.

No, it wasn't! They WANTED to be another country, but if declaring independence is all it takes to be that, then guess what? Siberia becomes its own country. Chechnya becomes its own country. The treaty of Paris at the end of the American Revolutionary War was, what, exactly? A complete waste of everyone's time? Why would they bother? How many Native American nations should we be showing on the map where currently we draw the United States? What of the micronations like Christiania in Denmark or Sealand in the North Sea?

And the are just the clearcut, easy examples. I haven't even gotten to the genuinely tough examples that even the best and the brightest in the United Nations can't agree on like Palestine.

There's a process to getting statehood recognized. The declaration is just the beginning of that process. And the other nations of the time gave serious thought to granting international recognition to the CSA BUT THEY VERY FAMOUSLY, ON RECORD, COULD NOT.

They were not a country. They eventually would have been if they had won but they did not.

"I'm not saying they have something in common! I'm just saying they have something in common."

Save it, we KNOW that this is Russian propaganda. There was a Ukraine long before there was ever a Moscow. There is only one reason not to let it go and that's because Putin's telling you not to - there are no other reasons to see Ukraine as part of de jure Russia. That is some neo-imperialist nonsense WHICH IS WHAT WE'VE ALL BEEN SAYING FROM THE START.

So you deny they both were/are men? They both have/had hair? They both have/had two legs?

They DO have stuff in common and this historical fact is one of them. Get off your ignorance horse and learn something.

Putin TELLING ME? Lol... like some historically logical nothing conservative like me is in touch with any world leader. What a maroon you are.

There were independent colonies long before they were independent sovereign states too. Each state CHOSE to be a part of the union and each state could (and still can) choose to no longer be part of the union.

Learn something.

What????! Ukraine didn't choose to be part of the USSR, there was a massive civil war 1917 to 1922 and they lost. How does a staunch anti-communist not know that? That's like high school level Soviet history.

Doesn't matter, that point is the same. They were part of it and Putin is restoring them. I don't agree with him doing it in the slightest, but it is funny to watch a liberal defend a RINO like Lincoln. :)

What do you mean, the point is the same? It is the exact contradiction to your point!!!!!!!!!!

"....iiiiiiiiis your browser not letting you read the second thing you wrote?

Ask your grandkids to help you out."

And we're done here. You misunderstand stuff and make false claims. That's fine. You're a liberal. So we'll just leave it at this... you've been corrected. My comments in this thread are correct and stand for themselves. Have a nice day.

Have I though?

Learn to read please. I never made any point about Ukraines entrance forced or otherwise to the USSR. You claimed they existed before Moscow, I pointed out the fact that the Colonies/States existed before the USA as well. I only every commented on the colonies in America. You misunderstood.

...........thaaaaaaaaat was ENTIRELY your point! Like, the second thing you said.

"...........thaaaaaaaaat was ENTIRELY your point! Like, the second thing you said."

Quote please so you can be corrected again.

....iiiiiiiiis your browser not letting you read the second thing you wrote?

Ask your grandkids to help you out.

note how you address none of the new points brought up, likely because you don't have a good excuse.

also, you spelled "moron" wrong- As another conservative, even I think it's quite ironic.

And actually, I did address his irrelevant comment that Ukraine existed before Moscow.

LOL... antithesis lost the thread with his opening lie **"I'm not saying they have something in common! I'm just saying they have something in common."** -- the rest of the post was not even read nor should have been. When he starts with a lie (I never said that or anything like it). He's good at dancing around inconvenient facts.

As for "maroon" you must be a child (in age). That's a line from the Three Stooges and other classic films and cartoons (IIRC). They didn't say "Moron" they said "maroon". Free lesson for you.

you... do realize he was paraphrasing you ironically, right? It's not hard to see the quote (") marks. here, let me give you another example:

"You didn't see a classic film so you must be a dumb child LOL!"

(yeah no, just because I didn't see some old film doesn't mean I'm a child, and now you know how making the dated reference looks to everyone else who hasn't.)

While we are here, though, allow me to throw in my two cents:

-Lincoln and Putin cannot be properly compared. The CSA was an overgrown rebellion that was born and destroyed within the same war. It had no taste of post-war independence. It didn't exist pre-war and lost a proper national identity post-war

Ukraine, meanwhile, existed in some form before Russia, has fought against Russia (and lost) before yet still managed to retain a national identity for over half a century, and has spent plenty of time even in the modern day without war and has achieved international recognition as a sovereign state completely independent of Russian rule.

And this highlights the different between Lincoln and Putin- Lincoln's goal was to hold together a union that was actively falling apart, while Putin's goal was to reconquer a union that was already long lost and mostly forgotten about.

Yes, I saw he falsely paraphrased my point and disguised it as an actual quote. I'm not like yourself, I can read.

Now to your incorrect points.

The CSA did exist pre-war. It declared and formed BEFORE the Union-caused incident at Fort Sumter. So on that point you're clearly wrong. They did exist post-war very slightly as they surrendered, but EACH STATE had to petition to be readmitted. So you're wrong their too.

Lincoln and Putin are correctly compared in this very simple way. Nothing else about them is begin compared and only and you and your buddy antithesis imagine that this one inarguable point of comparison implies comparison of everything.

It's like the truth that ALL ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS ARE CRIMINALS. That's without dispute. Doesn't mean that they all have criminal intent or broke another law before illegally entering the country. But you leftists and left-leaning RINOs try the shell game with truth.

You make the same point antithesis made (are you just a puppet account?) Ukraine existed before the USSR. The 13 colonies/states existed before the USA. So?

Doesn't change the main point of this discussion at all.

"And this highlights the different between Lincoln and Putin- Lincoln's goal was to hold together a union that was actively falling apart, while Putin's goal was to reconquer a union that was already long lost and mostly forgotten about."

Restating the false hood doesn't make it so.

Lincoln's union never went anywhere. The Confederate states left the union and formed their own sovereign nation. History proves this. But the USA never went anywhere, it was simply smaller. So he held together his smaller union WHILE Imperialistically attacking a neighboring country (the CSA) for the sole purpose of conquering them and FORCING THEM to rejoin his union.

So facts are facts. Both Lincoln and Putin were/are conquering another country for their own purposes.

Now you've been corrected. Go think on this and get with reality.

You have enough in this thread to chew on. No more replied from me here. The historical record supports my position not yours.

Good day.

please, do leave. Trust me, the historical record doesn't.

Yeah. And all those cartoons stopped using it because it's a racist term! Maroon is a color.

LOL! What a bizarre imagination. Maroon is a play on Moron. Not black/white/pink or any other color.

They stopped using it because just saying "Moron" because less taboo.

Sheesh.

Nope. You're basically calling someone brown as a way of calling people stupid.

Because you think brown people are stupid.

I am actually not joking here, there is a reason Bugs Bunny doesn't say that word anymore! Just you! You're the only person racist enough to keep using it.

You were already corrected on the maroon thing. We know maroon is a color, but that's 100% irrelevant to this discussion. It was a sub for Moron. As I used it with you. Enough said.

Then I don't think you know what the word irrelevant means!

Nope... the misleadia did nazi that...