THE ULTIMATE OBAMA LIE.............THE LIE THAT PRECEDED ALL THE LIES

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by bigtex

By the same token! If you vote for the greater of two candidates, guess what? You are voting for greater.

Please remind me once again! Who was it that started a Dipshit of the Year poll and nominated himself to be a leading contender?

Hey BigStupidAssTux! Arsenic or hemlock? Pick one. Marlboro or Winston. Which one is better for you? Lucifer or Satan? Which one is a better leader? Pick the "greater" one. Hitler or Pol Pot? Who do you choose?

When those are the only choices, there is no choice. Those are the choices offered to us by the two major parties. Take your pick. I will vote for liberty, even though it will surely lose.

[CuteOldGuy]

Duplicate post.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Old-T

Speaking of IBMassa, yes your beloved CC had provisions to say that the "right to slavery" amendment would be irrevocable.

And just to mention it because you love the topic so much, all this points out that in previous threads when you claimed the civil war wasn't about slavery--you were wrong.

You are quite confused, Old-Twerp. The real enjoyment in these exchanges is not for the promotion of slavery as you so deceitfully claim, Old-Twerp. The real joy comes from taking pretentious hypocrites like you by the scruff of your pompous, conceited necks and rubbing your pretentious noses in real, unadulterated facts.

Per the Crittenden Compromise, slavery was not guaranteed in states that adopted constitutions abolishing slavery, Old-Twerp. Hence your lying, deflecting notion that it would exist to the "end of days" is as stupid as it is dishonest, Old-Twerp.

Further, and this was pointed out to your dumb-ass before, Old-Twerp, neither Mr. Lincoln nor Congress made the abolition of slavery a formal and publicly stated war aim in 1861; hence, it was Union and not slavery that brought about the war. Such was the racism in your **noble North**, Old-Twerp, that Mr. Lincoln could not have mobilized an army to fight the South if he'd made the abolition of slavery a war aim.

Originally Posted by Old-T

Wow IIFFy, IBM at least TRIES to make a logical argument. All you do is toss pitiful insults that most 4th graders would think too juvenile for them to use.

You're the one with a "4th grade argument", Old-Twerp. It's easy for you today, in the 21st century, Old-Twerp, with your 20/20 hindsight like that employed by BigKoTex: the BUTTer Bar ASShat, to say that you'd gamble the future of the Union for the sake of abolition in 1860. But the reality of that time doesn't match your fantasy, Old-Twerp. "Butcher Grant" incurred greater than 64,000 casualties between May 5 and early July 1864. On June 3, "Butcher Grant" lost 7,000 men in less than one hour at Cold Harbor, Old-Twerp.

The North was filled with dim-retarded dissidents like BigKoTex: the BUTTer Bar ASShat who wailed and gnashed their teeth at the grievous losses; dissidents who were more than ready to let the South secede and bring the war to an ignoble end. Lincoln came very close to losing the 1864 election, and had it not been for Sherman capturing Atlanta just before the election, McClellan would probably have been elected. And McClellan would have settled for a negotiated end to the war. So, Old-Twerp, you can take your "4th grade argument" with your pompous 20/20 hindsight, and shove it up your pretentious, hypocritical ass, Old-Twerp.


BTW, Old Twerp, you ignored and failed to back-up your earlier lie by citing where I ever claimed Mr. Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was illegal, and if want to see how someone rationalizes the preservation of slavery, Old-Twerp, check out your dim-retard home-boy from Ohio: Vallandigham.

[Yssup Rider]

IBIdiot -- THE SOUTH SHALL NEVER RISE AGAIN!

Get the fuck over it already.

[Old-T]

Poor confused IBMassa. So what you say is:

The Missouri Compromise kept the south from succeeding because it gave concessions to slavery.

Buchanan was incompetent because he didn't push through even stronger, permanent concessions to the south that would protect slavery. Since he didn't, the south tried to secede.

But the civil war was not about slavery.

Right. Only in the mind of a Dixieland wannabe slave lord.

[A.Reader]

IBHankering, you are one sick puppy. You're right that some Northerners didn't think it was worth fighting to hold onto the Southern states. Maybe they were right, much of the former Confederate is a drain on the country even now, and the CSA would almost certainly fragmented into a number of smaller separate countries that would today mostly look like Central America and be no threat to the remaining USA.

Nonetheless your stubborn belief that slavery was morally good because some people weren't willing to fight is something between heinous and sick. What is right is not a popularity contest in issues like this, only what is allowed. Old T is right, you're an evil man.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Old-T

Poor confused IBMassa. So what you say is:

The Missouri Compromise kept the south from succeeding because it gave concessions to slavery.

Buchanan was incompetent because he didn't push through even stronger, permanent concessions to the south that would protect slavery. Since he didn't, the south tried to secede.

But the civil war was not about slavery.

Right. Only in the mind of a Dixieland wannabe slave lord.

Actually, Old-Twerp, what you continue to stupidly ignore is that it's what others have to say about Buchanan:

James Buchanan is often saddled with the title of "the worst US president", blamed for not averting the Civil War .... The intervening years have not been any kinder. Buchanan consistently ranks bottom in lists of "best presidents".

In January, Nate Silver, the star statistician whose election predictions have gained mythical status, revealed a poll of polls that placed Buchanan 43rd out of 43 presidents.

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-22946672

Eight presidents were alive at the end of their first terms but either didn’t seek another nomination or weren’t chosen by their parties. Of these, only James K. Polk rates as an above-average president; the rest range from mediocre to terrible, including three of the worst-regarded presidents: Andrew Johnson, Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes...ype=blogs&_r=1

That you continue to defend Buchanan reveals both your ignorance and your stupidity, Old-Twerp.

Further, Old-Twerp, even as you continue to stupidly belabor the point, you in fact have failed to produce a single document or transcript of a speech showing where in 1861 Mr. Lincoln called for soldiers to abolish slavery.

You continue to ignore and fail to back-up your earlier lie citing that I claimed Mr. Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was illegal, Old-Twerp.

As a reminder, if want to see how someone rationalizes the preservation of slavery, Old-Twerp, check out your dim-retard home-boy from Ohio: Vallandigham.

Originally Posted by A.Reader

IBHankering, you are one sick puppy. You're right that some Northerners didn't think it was worth fighting to hold onto the Southern states. Maybe they were right, much of the former Confederate is a drain on the country even now, and the CSA would almost certainly fragmented into a number of smaller separate countries that would today mostly look like Central America and be no threat to the remaining USA.

Nonetheless your stubborn belief that slavery was morally good because some people weren't willing to fight is something between heinous and sick. What is right is not a popularity contest in issues like this, only what is allowed. Old T is right, you're an evil man.

It's apparent your reading skills rate right down there at the bottom with Old-Twerp's, A.Reader, because no where in any of my posts did I argue that slavery was "morally good". Until you find such a quote, A.Reader, STFU and quit letting yourself be led around by the nose by Old-Twerp who is a pathetically pretentious and very stupid person.

BTW, A.Reader, if you hail from Indiana or Illinois you'd do well to study your state's history on racism during the Civil War. Despite Old-Twerp's deception and lies, Dixie did not have a monopoly on racism: and that is, and has been, the point of every one of my arguments on this subject.

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

IBIdiot -- THE SOUTH SHALL NEVER RISE AGAIN!

Get the fuck over it already.

You must be stupidly blind, you lying, hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM, not to have noticed in your lifetime the growth in your home state of Texas. Houston and Dallas have it all over Detroit, you lying, hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM.

[Old-T]

Why look at this IBMassa, you make a fool of yourself yet again.

You say Buchanan was deemed a poor president, one of the worst, BECAUSE HE DID NOT AVERT THE CIVIL WAR.

But you say I am off track when I ask you what YOU would have done to avert it.

YOU say that was because he didn't get a "Compromise" passed that would have perpetuated slavery, thus placating the southern states.

But you say the war was not about slavery.

Whether there are, were, or will be racists in northern stats (of course there have been!!) does nothing to justify your pro-slavery stance, and nothing to show that secession was about anything other than slavery.

Here is a proposition for you: you say your arguments are all about the fact that there were racists in northern states. I hereby agree, there were. I never said otherwise.

So now I expect YOU to finally acknowledge that secession WAS about slavery, as your own arguing shows, and that Buchanan--bad as he was overall--had no viable option to avert the war other than to acquiesce to maintain slavery as a constitutionally protected "right".

Somehow I doubt you will keep your end of the deal.

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

[COLOR="Black"][SIZE="3"]
You must be stupidly blind, you lying, hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM, not to have noticed in your lifetime the growth in your home state of Texas. Houston and Dallas have it all over Detroit, you lying, hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM.

Stupidly blind? Isn't that a knock on the disabled? Hey all you visually impaired fuckers out there, help me explain to IBIdiot how the cow ate the cabbage.

Corpy, you talk like Ben Stiller's character in the movie "Dodgeball," WHITE GOODMAN.

What a fucking moron!



Yeah, and I'm proud of my hometown and home state. Especially here in Austin, part of the Clarksville Metro Area. Thank fucking God that we haven't imported too many flag flying, whip-cracking, mushmouthed, corn-poning Johnny Rebs like you ... WHITE!

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Old-T

Why look at this IBMassa, you make a fool of yourself yet again.

You say Buchanan was deemed a poor president, one of the worst, BECAUSE HE DID NOT AVERT THE CIVIL WAR.

But you say I am off track when I ask you what YOU would have done to avert it.

YOU say that was because he didn't get a "Compromise" passed that would have perpetuated slavery, thus placating the southern states.

But you say the war was not about slavery.

Whether there are, were, or will be racists in northern stats (of course there have been!!) does nothing to justify your pro-slavery stance, and nothing to show that secession was about anything other than slavery.

Here is a proposition for you: you say your arguments are all about the fact that there were racists in northern states. I hereby agree, there were. I never said otherwise.

So now I expect YOU to finally acknowledge that secession WAS about slavery, as your own arguing shows, and that Buchanan--bad as he was overall--had no viable option to avert the war other than to acquiesce to maintain slavery as a constitutionally protected "right".

Somehow I doubt you will keep your end of the deal.

You're a liar, Old-Twerp; you quite specifically asked what "What should Buchanan have done?"

You also disingenuously lie, Old-Twerp, when you continue to repeatedly ignore and omit how innumerable others have previously judged -- and continue to judge -- Buchanan to be the worst and most inept president in American history. In this regard, your over reliance on the pronoun "you" -- to the exclusion of all others who have previously voiced that exact same judgement -- shows you to be the pathetic, lying worm you are, Old-Twerp.



You stipulated three questions, Old-Twerp, and you were answered. Your questions were:

What should Buchanan have done to prevent the war?

What should Buchanan have done to end slavery?

What should Buchanan have done to avert ensuing racial animus stemming from the institution of slavery?

You were answered thusly:

Regarding the first question: Buchanan could have lobbied for and ensured the adoption of the Crittenden Compromise you so lyingly misrepresent, Old-Twerp. This would have averted the war; hence, it is something Buchanan could have done and directly answers your question, you stupid jackass. The Crittenden Compromise reflected a marginal return to the status quo provided under the Missouri Compromise and it negated some of the inroads made my pro-slavery position under the provisions of the Kansas-Nebraska Act. Your stupid claim that this compromise perpetuated slavery "until the end of days" is a lie, Old-Twerp. What the compromise would have guaranteed was that it was the right of each state -- not Congress -- to make its own decisions regarding slavery.

Regarding the second question: As stated before, the Constitution did not bestow upon the executive office the civil authority to end slavery. Your question was directly addressed and answered, Old-Twerp.

Regarding the third question: As stated before, it was too late to preclude such animus since slavery had been an integral part of both the colonial and subsequent national period: even in your beloved New York, Old-Twerp, where slavery existed for some 150 years longer than it did in Alabama, jackass! hence, your third stipulation -- an obviously stupid stipulation -- was directly addressed and answered, Old-Twerp.

Regarding your latest hobbyhorse, Old-Twerp. Until you produce a document or transcript wherein Mr. Lincoln called forth soldiers in April 1861 to abolish slavery, you will be the one who remains the stupid fool, Old-Twerp. Mr. Lincoln's April 15, 1861 "Call to Arms" doesn't mention "abolition of slavery" as a war aim, Old-Twerp.

"I appeal to all loyal citizens to favor, facilitate, and aid this effort to maintain the honor, the integrity, and the existence of our National Union"

President Abraham Lincoln

As you should be able to see, Old-Twerp, Mr. Lincoln's call to arms was obviously to "maintain Union".

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Stupidly blind? Isn't that a knock on the disabled? Hey all you visually impaired fuckers out there, help me explain to IBIdiot how the cow ate the cabbage.

Corpy, you talk like Ben Stiller's character in the movie "Dodgeball," WHITE GOODMAN.

What a fucking moron!

Yeah, and I'm proud of my hometown and home state. Especially here in Austin, part of the Clarksville Metro Area. Thank fucking God that we haven't imported too many flag flying, whip-cracking, mushmouthed, corn-poning Johnny Rebs like you ... WHITE!

Bragging about your intellectual blindness is a symptom of your mental disability, you lying, hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM.

[Old-T]

Ah yes, IB the myopic.

WHY was the Union threatened? Because as you yourself say, because of SLAVERY.

If the constitution did not give the president the power to abolish slavery, then what Lincoln did wasillegal--you can't have it both ways.

And of course I was asking YOU and JD your thoughts because I was not expecting an answer from the wraith of Buchanan.

Poor pitiful IB.

[Yssup Rider]

This fucking hillbilly idiot will turn ANYTHING into a pissing match.

Maybe one day, he'll learn to lift the lid before he sits down to pee.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Old-T

Ah yes, IB the myopic.

WHY was the Union threatened? Because as you yourself say, because of SLAVERY.

If the constitution did not give the president the power to abolish slavery, then what Lincoln did wasillegal--you can't have it both ways.

And of course I was asking YOU and JD your thoughts because I was not expecting an answer from the wraith of Buchanan.

Poor pitiful IB.

One should take Mr. Lincoln at his word, Old-Twerp. Mr. Lincoln stated that his call for troops in April 1861 was to "maintain Union", Old-Twerp. Are you claiming that Mr. Lincoln was being dishonest, Old-Twerp? Are you claiming that Mr. Lincoln lied, Old-Twerp?

"Both ways", Old-Twerp? There is no "both ways" in this matter, Old-Twerp. Again you broadcast your stupidity on this subject, Old-Twerp. Mr. Lincoln invoked his authority under the war powers clause of the Constitution. Without war, he could never have "constitutionally" issued such an Executive Order.

Old-Twerp, are you suggesting that Mr. Lincoln contrived for war so that he could invoke those additional powers?

Nevertheless, Old-Twerp, Mr. Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation freed almost no one. The contemporary London Times summed it up best when it ridiculed Mr. Lincoln's proclamation:

Where he has no power, Mr. Lincoln will set the Negroes free; where he retains power he will consider them as slaves. This is more like a Chinaman beating his two swords together to frighten his enemy than like an earnest man pressing forward his cause. London Times October 1862

That it freed no one, Old-Twerp, is obvious to anyone who can read with a level of comprehension possessed by a 5th grader:

A Transcription

By the President of the United States of America:

A Proclamation.

Whereas, on the twenty-second day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-two, a proclamation was issued by the President of the United States, containing, among other things, the following, to wit:

"That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom.

"That the Executive will, on the first day of January aforesaid, by proclamation, designate the States and parts of States, if any, in which the people thereof, respectively, shall then be in rebellion against the United States [And NOT the slave states that stayed in the Union: Maryland, Missouri, Delaware and Kentucky]; and the fact that any State, or the people thereof, shall on that day be, in good faith, represented in the Congress of the United States by members chosen thereto at elections wherein a majority of the qualified voters of such State shall have participated, shall, in the absence of strong countervailing testimony, be deemed conclusive evidence that such State, and the people thereof, are not then in rebellion against the United States."

Now, therefore I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander-in-Chief, of the Army and Navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority and government of the United States, and as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion, do, on this first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and in accordance with my purpose so to do publicly proclaimed for the full period of one hundred days, from the day first above mentioned, order and designate as the States and parts of States wherein the people thereof respectively, are this day in rebellion against the United States, the following, to wit:

Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, (except the Parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James, Ascension, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the City of New Orleans) , Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia, (except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Ann, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth), and which excepted parts, are for the present, left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued.

And by virtue of the power, and for the purpose aforesaid, I do order and declare that all persons held as slaves within said designated States, and parts of States, are, and henceforward shall be free; and that the Executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of said persons.

And I hereby enjoin upon the people so declared to be free to abstain from all violence, unless in necessary self-defence; and I recommend to them that, in all cases when allowed, they labor faithfully for reasonable wages.

And I further declare and make known, that such persons of suitable condition, will be received into the armed service of the United States to garrison forts, positions, stations, and other places, and to man vessels of all sorts in said service.

And upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of justice, warranted by the Constitution, upon military necessity, I invoke the considerate judgment of mankind, and the gracious favor of Almighty God.

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.

Done at the City of Washington, this first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty three, and of the Independence of the United States of America the eighty-seventh.

By the President: ABRAHAM LINCOLN
WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State.

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

This fucking hillbilly idiot will turn ANYTHING into a pissing match.

Maybe one day, he'll learn to lift the lid before he sits down to pee.

Pardon, but you imbecility is showing, you lying, hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM.

[Old-T]

As I usually do I have made the mistake of believing you actually want to discuss something. You don't. You want to blithering on about stuff that was never in the original issue, nameless whether Buchanan could have prevented the civil war without perpetuating slavery.

But instead you rant on about how northerners are evil, how N.Y. had slaves centuries earlier, and how Lincoln was an evil man for crushing Dixie.

The truth is the south started the civil war, not Lincoln's call to arms. The south started the civil war over their desire to enslave blacks. And by the time he was elected there was no good option for Buchanan on that issue.

I am sorry you were born 150 years or so too late to be a slave lord. Get over it.

Look on the bright side: with all your ranting you are fast closing in on 13,000 posts! That's what happens when you have no real life.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Old-T

As I usually do I have made the mistake of believing you actually want to discuss something. You don't. You want to blithering on about stuff that was never in the original issue, nameless whether Buchanan could have prevented the civil war without perpetuating slavery.

But instead you rant on about how northerners are evil, how N.Y. had slaves centuries earlier, and how Lincoln was an evil man for crushing Dixie.

The truth is the south started the civil war, not Lincoln's call to arms. The south started the civil war over their desire to enslave blacks. And by the time he was elected there was no good option for Buchanan on that issue.

I am sorry you were born 150 years or so too late to be a slave lord. Get over it.

Look on the bright side: with all your ranting you are fast closing in on 13,000 posts! That's what happens when you have no real life.

You're a sorry fucking liar, Old-Twerp. You asked three questions, and those questions were addressed and answered, Old-Twerp. It was your sorry fucking ass that then interjected 21st century values to declaim 19th century solutions, and vice versa, while you ranted on about the "evil South" and while you continue to ignore how your **beloved North** was every bit as fucking guilty of perpetuating slavery as the South, Old-Twerp. You're a fucking hypocrite, Old-Twerp.

And it was Mr. Lincoln who promulgated the war to "maintain Union", Old-Twerp. No one died in combat until Mr. Lincoln sent an invading army into Virginia at First Manassas, Old-Twerp. It was not southern armies advancing on the North that promulgated the war, Old-Twerp. You can take your gift of "20/20 hindsight" and shove it up your pretentious and hypocritical ass, old-Twerp.