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

[Yssup Rider]

Is that a yes or a no, poopshorts?

[Old-T]

Here is the basic difference between my view of things and yours on this issue:

--You don't have any problem with preserving slavery
--You don't have any problem with secession
--You anxiously away the return of the antebellum Dixie lifestyle

We very fundamentally disagree on all three points. I have very explicitly come out where I stand on those points. You obfuscate and say that since no one was killed it wasn't an act of war. That the south seceded because of slavery but somehow secession had nothing to do with the civil war so the war wasn't about slavery. Even if it was, it was the northerners who were the major slave owners. You spin yourself into such absurd statements that even your fellow RWWs often distance themselves from your stupidity.

Rant away sad old man. So long as you remain pro slave and pro secession you are beyond intelligent conversation.

On the positive side, just 68 more posts to your next milestone!!! Go, IB, go!

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Old-T

Here is the basic difference between my view of things and yours on this issue:

--You don't have any problem with preserving slavery You're a liar and a hypocrite, Old-Twerp. BTW, Old-Twerp, it was a New York senator that originally proposed that amendment that you so dislike, and it passed muster with Mr. Lincoln. And here's another FYI that will chap your stupid ass, Old-Twerp. Your adopted state of Ohio ratified that particular amendment, Old-Twerp!
--You don't have any problem with secession Merely pointed out to your sorry ass how it wasn't a settled matter until 1865, Old-Twerp.
--You anxiously away the return of the antebellum Dixie lifestyleYou're a liar and a hypocrite, Old-Twerp.

We very fundamentally disagree on all three points. I have very explicitly come out where I stand on those points. You obfuscate and say that since no one was killed it wasn't an act of war. It wasn't necessarily a "war" until Mr. Lincoln called for troops to maintain the Union making it a war, Old-Twerp. That the south seceded because of slavery but somehow secession had nothing to do with the civil war so the war wasn't about slavery. Mr. Lincoln said it was to maintain the Union, Old-Twerp. Are you calling Mr. Lincoln a liar, Old-Twerp? Even if it was, it was the northerners who were the major slave owners. The last American to be hanged for engaging in the slave trade was a Yankee captain sailing a New York slave ship, Old-Twerp. You spin yourself into such absurd statements that even your fellow RWWs often distance themselves from your stupidity.You're a liar, and you're mired in hypocrisy and stupidity, Old-Twerp.

Rant away sad old man. So long as you remain pro slave and pro secession you are beyond intelligent conversation. You're mired in hypocritical stupidity, Old-Twerp; you always have been.

On the positive side, just 68 more posts to your next milestone!!! Go, IB, go! As you sit on 4154, Old-Twerp, there was a time when you stupidly thought 2503 was too many posts: hypocrite.

.

[Old-T]

What a pathetic little man IB is. Sad, delusional, and minimally capable of intelligent thought (and that may be giving him too much credit).

I never said every New Yorker was a saint, did I? So what does a dead NY ship's captain have to do with Dixie having the predominance of slaves?

I never said the last person hanged for slaver trading was a Dixiecrat, did I? So what does that have to do with a dead NY sea captain being a scumbag who was part of the slave trade?

Your one lame example doesn't even begin to counter the data on slaves and where they were at the time of the Civil War. Remember that thread where the data showed state by state that the traitorous war starting SOUTHERN states had hundreds if not thousands of times the number of slaves as the Northern states? Even with that very clear, unambiguous data YOU managed to scream and rant and throw a temper tantrum that Northern states were the reason there was slavery. And oddly I don't recall you once speaking out against slavery, just whining "the bad Northerners made my beloved Dixie do it!"

No, no blame goes to South Carolina and the rest for seceding--it is heap all the blame on Lincoln for not letting them leave. And one more time, what was the REASON they tried to break away? Yes, the "S" word.

And just in closing, do you remember what the "2503" meant? Obviously you don't--because otherwise you wouldn't incriminate yourself. You make it far too easy when you plant the claymore under your own feet, but I'll be happy to set it off. But not tonight--I'll let you froth at the mouth for a while.

HINT: It was NOT the number of posts you had at that time, nor the number I had.

[I B Hankering]

.

Originally Posted by Old-T

What a pathetic little man IB is. Sad, delusional, and minimally capable of intelligent thought (and that may be giving him too much credit). You're the one who is mired in stupidity and hypocrisy, Old-Twerp.

I never said every New Yorker was a saint, did I? So what does a dead NY ship's captain have to do with Dixie having the predominance of slaves? Your beloved New Yorkers were complicit in the slave trade and profited off every single dime made by slave labor, Old-Twerp.

I never said the last person hanged for slaver trading was a Dixiecrat, did I? So what does that have to do with a dead NY sea captain being a scumbag who was part of the slave trade?Your beloved New Yorkers and other Yankees were complicit in the slave trade and profited by almost a nickel for every dime made by slave labor, Old-Twerp.

Your one lame example doesn't even begin to counter the data on slaves and where they were at the time of the Civil War. They got there because your beloved New Yorkers and other Yankees were complicit in the slave trade and profited off every dime made by slave labor, Old-Twerp. Remember that thread where the data showed state by state that the traitorous war starting SOUTHERN states had hundreds if not thousands of times the number of slaves as the Northern states? While you stupidly chose to ignore and deflect from the fact that New York held slaves for 150 years longer than Alabama while you continue to rant against Southerners, Old-Twerp. Even with that very clear, unambiguous data YOU managed to scream and rant and throw a temper tantrum that Northern states were the reason there was slavery. You're the one who is throwing a pathetic, little tantrum, Old-Twerp. And oddly I don't recall you once speaking out against slavery, just whining "the bad Northerners made my beloved Dixie do it!" Your beloved New Yorkers and other Yankees were complicit in the slave trade and profited off every dime made by slave labor, Old-Twerp.

No, no blame goes to South Carolina and the rest for seceding--it is heap all the blame on Lincoln for not letting them leave. And one more time, what was the REASON they tried to break away? Yes, the "S" word. Mr. Lincoln is the one who promulgated the war to maintain the Union, Old-Twerp.

And just in closing, do you remember what the "2503" meant? Obviously you don't--because otherwise you wouldn't incriminate yourself. You make it far too easy when you plant the claymore under your own feet, but I'll be happy to set it off. But not tonight--I'll let you froth at the mouth for a while. You're the one who is frothing until you are **blue** in your posts, Old-Twerp.

HINT: It was NOT the number of posts you had at that time, nor the number I had. You're a liar, Old-Twerp, that's exactly what you were referring to.

[Old-T]

So now we get to part of your REAL anger issues: you are mad because you THINK N.Y. was making too much profit off your Dixie country bumpkin kin. It wasn't any sense of moral outrage, your anger was all about greed.

As to N.Y. having slaves longer than Alabama, could that be because NY was around longer? You think maybe that had something to do with it? But in the end N.Y. didn't need hundreds of thousands of blue and gray soldiers to die before they saw the error of their ways. Alabama did.

And in conclusion, no, you really don't have a clue what "2503" referred to. You had a lot more posts than that at the time.

[Yssup Rider]

Pisspants! is that a yes or a no?

[Mr MojoRisin]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Carter promised not to come out if the White House until the hostages were freed.

You probably whined about that too.

What did you think of his rescue attempt? Epic wasn't it. Do you remember what you were doing that day?


Jim

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Old-T

So now we get to part of your REAL anger issues: you are mad because you THINK N.Y. was making too much profit off your Dixie country bumpkin kin. No, Old-Twerp, it's a documented fact that New York and other Yankee states profited off of slaves, but you continue to stupidly and pretentiously pretend that didn't happen and that your New Yorkers were all little color-blind angels, hypocrite. It wasn't any sense of moral outrage, your anger was all about greed. No, Old-Twerp, these exchanges are to illustrate and highlight your stupidity in these matters.

As to N.Y. having slaves longer than Alabama, could that be because NY was around longer? And that's one of the facts you continue to stupidly ignore and deflect away from, Old-Twerp. You think maybe that had something to do with it? But in the end N.Y. didn't need hundreds of thousands of blue and gray soldiers to die before they saw the error of their ways. They saw the **error of their ways** as they continued to build slave ships and make expeditions to Africa to enslave Africans after the slave trade was abolished and made illegal, Old-Twerp? They saw the **error of their ways** as they continued to financially back and profit from such slave ventures and slave labor after the slave trade was abolished and made illegal, Old-Twerp? They certainly made a profit off of slavery after they saw the **error of their ways**, Old-Twerp. Alabama did. So you with your pretentious, 20/20, 21st century hindsight hypocritically demand and expect of 50 year old, 19th century Alabama something New Yorkers couldn't achieve in less than almost 200 years, Old-Twerp? You're the height of hypocrisy, Old-Twerp!

And in conclusion, no, you really don't have a clue what "2503" referred to. You had a lot more posts than that at the time. No, Old-Twerp, you continue to lie, because that was you with your weak and pathetic straw man argument about post count that you repeatedly trot out when you're having your ass served to you in an argument.

.

[Yssup Rider]

Are you still talking about SLAVERY, IBIdiot?

Why don't you talk to your doppelganger, JL/UH/HK/IB about that. He LOVES slaves!

[Old-T]

Not only TALKING about it, but justifying it. "Alabama only had it for 50 years, that's not really so bad, is it?"

Odd how people like IBMassa want to vilify drug users as the scourge of the earth and probably support the death penalty for having half a joint in their pocket, but do a complete flop and consider plantation owners blameless for the 200+ years of human suffering that was slavery in Dixie. No, according to IB it is all those mean Northerners' fault. Odd how SANE pElle can acknowledge there were good and bad people on both sides of the M-D line, but Dixie loving wacko IB believes that because there were bad New Yorkers, they somehow means southern slavery was pardoned.

I also find it odd for someone who supposedly wants to treat people as individuals--not members of a class composite--he is so willing to condemn all New Yorkers for the sins of a few. On second thought, such a view isn't all that strange for IBMassa. He dehumanizes hundreds of thousands of slaves by arguing "the morals of the 1800's didn't see anything wrong with it, so we should not criticize them now", so why would I be shocked that he demonizes a whole state with one tar filled brush stroke.

The man hates the Union so much, and apparently New York in partcircular, I always knew there had to be something more behind it. Now we know, simple monetary GREED!

PS: Guessing the same wrong answer over and over doesn't make it right. That number was not your number of posts as of that day. It was not my number of posts that day. And you are an incredibly stupid fool for diving head first into a cesspool--but you did. I will let you ponder it a little while longer (and probably display your obstinate personality again) but I will reveal the truth soon.

[Yssup Rider]

LMAO! He can't handle the truth, Old-T!

[Old-T]

Well, I gave you a few days to see if you could handle the truth, but since you can’t see it or recognize it, obviously you can’t handle it. So let me explain what is both simple and revealing.

You dig up a post out of context from a couple years ago, a post that says “2503”, and you spin some stupid lie about what it means, just so you can pat yourself on the back and tell yourself how great you are, how unfairly maligned you are. All it shows in truth is how pitiful you are. We EXPECT the three stooges to revel in self-mockery, it is their job. But when we see someone like you do it—and not even realize it—it is not funny, it becomes the essence of pathos. That really is what you have become, a self-caricature dripping in pathos.

So, what REALLY was 2503? I will tell you the TRUTH.

In April of 2012 (the date of that post you dredged up from the archives) I had been on here for almost two years. You had been here eight months longer. You were already a “rising star” in terms of volume posting, and I made some comment to that effect. Pure, simple post: IB posts a lot. I may have implied you posted a lot because you had little else to do, I honestly do not remember. But by the standards of this forum it was a VERY mild taunt—and most importantly, true. You DID post a lot back then.

But in typical IB paranoid, self-centered, can’t do anything wrong manner you spun yourself into the roof. You took anything you perceived as a slight and contorted/twisted/spewed it back out accusing (falsely) your “attacker” of all the negative traits you perceived couldn’t possibly belong to you. As a result, you came back and made a stupid comment (no surprise, that is what you do) that it was actually ME who was over-posting. You implied I was posting at a faster rate and would overtake you any day.

So, since you are not capable of doing it, I did the basic arithmetic for you, and looked at the difference in the number of posts we had at that time. I then followed it up for a little while to see if the gap between us was growing or shrinking. I would occasionally post that number so you, I, and everyone else could see what was actually happening. The gap kept widening, widening, and soon reached the statistically significant level so I stopped tracking/posting it. Anyone with half a functioning brain could see the obvious truth (in retrospect that was my error—you clearly have far less than half a functioning brain).

THAT was what “2503” was. How many MORE posts you had at that time than I did.

At that time, over the period of roughly two years, a DIFFERENCE of 2503 seemed, at least to me, to be a noticeable number, and since it was growing over time, I seemed clear proof that YOU post a lot more than I do. That YOU were destined to be one of the high flying starts of posting quantity (if not quality).

So now, two years later, let’s do an update: I have (counting this one) 4158 posts. YOU have 12945--simply awe inspiring when you realize many of us actually have jobs. Now try and follow this, I know it can be difficult:
12945 minus 4158 is a mind numbing 8787 post DIFFERENCE.
YOU have posted 8787 times MORE than I have.

In roughly the first two years you posted 2503 times more than I did.
In the next two years (roughly) you posted an astonishing 6284 times more than I did.

Wow, you are flying so high and so fast I give up. I concede that I will NEVER catch up to your post count (not that I would ever want to). You truly are a master of pulp fiction posting.

So enjoy your 13,000th post, it is only 55 away. It seems like just yesterday we were all counting down (up) to your 12,000th post. And, just to keep you motivated, that will put you only a few hundred posts below the Top 15! Go, IB, go! Go, IB, go! You can probably put up a few hundred posts in a day or two. None of them might be worth reading, but we are talking quantity not quality here.

[A.Reader]

Thanks T! I'd forgotten that, but so true.

Originally Posted by Old-T

Well, I gave you a few days to see if you could handle the truth, but since you can’t see it or recognize it, obviously you can’t handle it. So let me explain what is both simple and revealing.

You dig up a post out of context from a couple years ago, a post that says “2503”, and you spin some stupid lie about what it means, just so you can pat yourself on the back and tell yourself how great you are, how unfairly maligned you are. All it shows in truth is how pitiful you are. We EXPECT the three stooges to revel in self-mockery, it is their job. But when we see someone like you do it—and not even realize it—it is not funny, it becomes the essence of pathos. That really is what you have become, a self-caricature dripping in pathos.

So, what REALLY was 2503? I will tell you the TRUTH.

In April of 2012 (the date of that post you dredged up from the archives) I had been on here for almost two years. You had been here eight months longer. You were already a “rising star” in terms of volume posting, and I made some comment to that effect. Pure, simple post: IB posts a lot. I may have implied you posted a lot because you had little else to do, I honestly do not remember. But by the standards of this forum it was a VERY mild taunt—and most importantly, true. You DID post a lot back then.

But in typical IB paranoid, self-centered, can’t do anything wrong manner you spun yourself into the roof. You took anything you perceived as a slight and contorted/twisted/spewed it back out accusing (falsely) your “attacker” of all the negative traits you perceived couldn’t possibly belong to you. As a result, you came back and made a stupid comment (no surprise, that is what you do) that it was actually ME who was over-posting. You implied I was posting at a faster rate and would overtake you any day.

So, since you are not capable of doing it, I did the basic arithmetic for you, and looked at the difference in the number of posts we had at that time. I then followed it up for a little while to see if the gap between us was growing or shrinking. I would occasionally post that number so you, I, and everyone else could see what was actually happening. The gap kept widening, widening, and soon reached the statistically significant level so I stopped tracking/posting it. Anyone with half a functioning brain could see the obvious truth (in retrospect that was my error—you clearly have far less than half a functioning brain).

THAT was what “2503” was. How many MORE posts you had at that time than I did.

At that time, over the period of roughly two years, a DIFFERENCE of 2503 seemed, at least to me, to be a noticeable number, and since it was growing over time, I seemed clear proof that YOU post a lot more than I do. That YOU were destined to be one of the high flying starts of posting quantity (if not quality).

So now, two years later, let’s do an update: I have (counting this one) 4158 posts. YOU have 12945--simply awe inspiring when you realize many of us actually have jobs. Now try and follow this, I know it can be difficult:
12945 minus 4158 is a mind numbing 8787 post DIFFERENCE.
YOU have posted 8787 times MORE than I have.

In roughly the first two years you posted 2503 times more than I did.
In the next two years (roughly) you posted an astonishing 6284 times more than I did.

Wow, you are flying so high and so fast I give up. I concede that I will NEVER catch up to your post count (not that I would ever want to). You truly are a master of pulp fiction posting.

So enjoy your 13,000th post, it is only 55 away. It seems like just yesterday we were all counting down (up) to your 12,000th post. And, just to keep you motivated, that will put you only a few hundred posts below the Top 15! Go, IB, go! Go, IB, go! You can probably put up a few hundred posts in a day or two. None of them might be worth reading, but we are talking quantity not quality here.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Old-T

Not only TALKING about it, but justifying it. "Alabama only had it for 50 years, that's not really so bad, is it?"

Odd how people like IBMassa want to vilify drug users as the scourge of the earth and probably support the death penalty for having half a joint in their pocket, but do a complete flop and consider plantation owners blameless for the 200+ years of human suffering that was slavery in Dixie. No, according to IB it is all those mean Northerners' fault. Odd how SANE pElle can acknowledge there were good and bad people on both sides of the M-D line, but Dixie loving wacko IB believes that because there were bad New Yorkers, they somehow means southern slavery was pardoned.

I also find it odd for someone who supposedly wants to treat people as individuals--not members of a class composite--he is so willing to condemn all New Yorkers for the sins of a few. On second thought, such a view isn't all that strange for IBMassa. He dehumanizes hundreds of thousands of slaves by arguing "the morals of the 1800's didn't see anything wrong with it, so we should not criticize them now", so why would I be shocked that he demonizes a whole state with one tar filled brush stroke.

The man hates the Union so much, and apparently New York in partcircular, I always knew there had to be something more behind it. Now we know, simple monetary GREED!

PS: Guessing the same wrong answer over and over doesn't make it right. That number was not your number of posts as of that day. It was not my number of posts that day. And you are an incredibly stupid fool for diving head first into a cesspool--but you did. I will let you ponder it a little while longer (and probably display your obstinate personality again) but I will reveal the truth soon.

Actually, Old-Twerp, you're the one who continues to initiate these exchanges in order to hypocritically rail against Southerners. It took New Yorkers almost 200 years to develop an economy that wasn't based on slave labor, Old-Twerp: that's a fact you stupidly and fantastically wish would go away. But since it doesn't go away, you hypocritically ignore it, Old-Twerp. It took New York almost 200 years to develop a class of free labor that opposed slavery for economic -- not moral -- reasons, Old-Twerp. But since that's another fact that doesn't go away, you hypocritically chose to ignore it also, Old-Twerp.

It wasn't "just a few" of your precious New Yorkers who benefited from slavery and the slave trade after it was banned and made illegal, Old-Twerp. Yankees pocketed almost a nickel for every dime made from slaves and the slave trade, Old-Twerp. Every fuckin' New Yorker who directly or indirectly took a fraction of that nickel was complicit in slavery and the slave trade, Old-Twerp. That means the speculators, the financiers, the bankers, the stock holders, the carpenters, the wainwrights, the wheelwrights, the blacksmiths, the bakers, the farmers, the iron mongers, the shipwrights, the street vendors and the bums, Old-Twerp. Here's what one of your moralistic, **color-blind** Yankee angels -- a New York City mayor, no less -- had to say, Old-Twerp:

Mayor Wood’s Recommendation of the Secession of New York City

Fernando Wood, Mayor of New York City
January 06, 1861

To the Honorable the Common Council:

GENTLEMEN: We are entering upon the public duties of the year under circumstances as unprecedented as they are gloomy and painful to contemplate. The great trading and producing interests of not only the city of New York, but of the entire country, are prostrated by a monetary crisis; and although similar calamities have before befallen us, it is the first time that they have emanated from causes having no other origin than that which may be traced to political disturbances. Truly, may it now be said, “We are in the midst of a revolution bloodless as Yet.” Whether the dreadful alternative implied as probable in the conclusion of this prophetic quotation may be averted, “no human ken can divine.” It is quite certain that the severity of the storm is unexampled in our history, and if the disintegration of the Federal Government, with the consequent destruction of all the material interests of the people shall not follow, it will be owing more to the interposition of Divine Providence, than to the inherent preventive power of our institutions, or the intervention of any other human agency.

It would seem that a dissolution of the Federal Union is inevitable. Having been formed originally on a basis of general and mutual protection, but separate local independence–each State reserving the entire and absolute control of its own domestic affairs, it is evidently impossible to keep them together longer than they deem themselves fairly treated by each other, or longer than the interests, honor and fraternity of the people of the several States are satisfied. Being a Government created by opinion, its continuance is dependent upon the continuance of the sentiment which formed it. It cannot be preserved by coercion or held together by force. A resort to this last dreadful alternative would of itself destroy not only the Government, but the lives and property of the people.

If these forebodings shall be realized, and a separation of the States shall occur, momentous considerations will be presented to the corporate authorities of this city. We must provide for the new relations which will necessarily grow out of the new condition of public affairs.

It will not only be necessary for us to settle the relations which we shall hold to other cities and States, but to establish, if we can, new ones with a portion of our own State. Being the child of the Union, having drawn our sustenance from its bosom, and arisen to our present power and strength through the vigor of our mother–when deprived of her maternal advantages, we must rely upon our own resources and assume a position predicated upon the new phase which public affairs will present, and upon the inherent strength which our geographical, commercial, political, and financial preeminence imparts to us.

With our aggrieved brethren of the Slave States, we have friendly relations and a common sympathy. We have not participated in the warfare upon their constitutional rights or their domestic institutions. While other portions of our State have unfortunately been imbued with the fanatical spirit which actuates a portion of the people of New England, the city of New York has unfalteringly preserved the integrity of its principles of adherence to the compromises of the Constitution and the equal rights of the people of all the States. We have respected the local interests of every section, at no time oppressing, but all the while aiding in the development of the resources of the whole country. Our ships have penetrated to every clime, and so have New York capital, energy and enterprise found their way to every State, and, indeed, to almost every county and town of the American Union. If we have derived sustenance from the Union, so have we in return disseminated blessings for the common benefit of all. Therefore, New York has a right to expect, and should endeavor to preserve a continuance of uninterrupted intercourse with every section.

It is, however, folly to disguise the fact that, judging from the past, New York may have more cause of apprehension from the aggressive legislation of our own State than from external dangers. We have already largely suffered from this cause. For the past five years, our interests and corporate rights have been repeatedly trampled upon. Being an integral portion of the State, it has been assumed, and in effect tacitly admitted on our part by nonresistance, that all political and governmental power over us rested in the State Legislature. Even the common right of taxing ourselves for our own government, has been yielded, and we are not permitted to do so without this authority.

Thus it will be seen that the political connection between the people of the city and the State has been used by the latter to our injury. The Legislature, in which the present partizan majority has the power, has become the instrument by which we are plundered to enrich their speculators, lobby agents, and Abolition politicians. Laws are passed through their malign influence by which, under forms of legal enactment, our burdens have been increased, our substance eaten out, and our municipal liberties destroyed. Self—government, though guaranteed by the State Constitution, and left to every other county and city, has been taken from us by this foreign power, whose dependents have been sent among us to destroy our liberties by subverting our political system.

How we shall rid ourselves of this odious and oppressive connection, it is not for me to determine. It is certain that a dissolution cannot be peacefully accomplished, except by the consent of the Legislature itself. Whether this can be obtained or not, is, in my judgment, doubtful. Deriving so much advantage from its power over the city, it is not probable that a partizan majority will consent to a separation–and the resort to force by violence and revolution must not be thought of for an instant. We have been distinguished as an orderly and law—abiding people. Let us do nothing to forfeit this character, or to add to the present distracted condition of a public affairs.

Much, no doubt, can be said in favor of the justice and policy of a separation. It may be said that secession or revolution in any of the United States would be subversive of all Federal authority, and, so far as the Central Government is concerned, the resolving of the community into its original elements–that, if part of the States form new combinations and Governments, other States may do the same. California and her sisters of the Pacific will no doubt set up an independent Republic and husband their own rich mineral resources. The Western States, equally rich in cereals and other agricultural products, will probably do the same. Then it may be said, why should not New York city, instead of supporting by her contributions in revenue two—thirds of the expenses of the United States, become also equally independent? As a free city, with but nominal duty on imports, her local Government could be supported without taxation upon her people. Thus we could live free from taxes, and have cheap goods nearly duty free. In this she would have the whole and united support of the Southern States, as well as all the other States to whose interests and rights under the Constitution she has always been true.

It is well for individuals or communities to look every danger square in the face, and to meet it calmly and bravely. As dreadful as the severing of the bonds that have hitherto united the States has been in contemplation, it is now apparently a stern and inevitable fact. We have now to meet it with all the consequences, whatever they may be. If the Confederacy is broken up the Government is dissolved, and it behooves every distinct community, as well as every individual, to take care of themselves.

When Disunion has become a fixed and certain fact, why may not New York disrupt the bands which bind her to a venal and corrupt master–to a people and a party that have plundered her revenues, attempted to ruin her and a party that have plundered her revenues, attempted to ruin her commerce, taken away the power of self—government, and destroyed the Confederacy of which she was the proud Empire City? Amid the gloom which the present and prospective condition of things must cast over the country, New York, as a Free City, may shed the only light and hope of a future reconstruction of our once blessed Confederacy.

But I am not prepared to recommend the violence implied in these views. In stating this argument in favor of freedom, “peaceably if we can, forcibly if we must,” let me not be misunderstood. The redress can be found only in appeals to the magnanimity of the people of the whole State. The events of the past two months have no doubt effected a change in the popular sentiment of the State and National politics. This change may bring us the desired relief, and we may be able to obtain a repeal of the law to which I have referred, and a consequent restoration of our corporate rights.

So, Old-Twerp, you can take your pretentious Yankee 21st century morality which you use to bombastically moralize against 19th century Southerners and you can take your pretentious Yankee 20/20 hindsight that allows you to believe that a Civil War was an assured way to end slavery and shove both of those stupid notions up your stupid and pretentious Yankee ass!

Originally Posted by Old-T

Well, I gave you a few days to see if you could handle the truth, but since you can’t see it or recognize it, obviously you can’t handle it. So let me explain what is both simple and revealing.

You dig up a post out of context from a couple years ago, a post that says “2503”, and you spin some stupid lie about what it means, just so you can pat yourself on the back and tell yourself how great you are, how unfairly maligned you are. All it shows in truth is how pitiful you are. We EXPECT the three stooges to revel in self-mockery, it is their job. But when we see someone like you do it—and not even realize it—it is not funny, it becomes the essence of pathos. That really is what you have become, a self-caricature dripping in pathos.

So, what REALLY was 2503? I will tell you the TRUTH.

In April of 2012 (the date of that post you dredged up from the archives) I had been on here for almost two years. You had been here eight months longer. You were already a “rising star” in terms of volume posting, and I made some comment to that effect. Pure, simple post: IB posts a lot. I may have implied you posted a lot because you had little else to do, I honestly do not remember. But by the standards of this forum it was a VERY mild taunt—and most importantly, true. You DID post a lot back then.

But in typical IB paranoid, self-centered, can’t do anything wrong manner you spun yourself into the roof. You took anything you perceived as a slight and contorted/twisted/spewed it back out accusing (falsely) your “attacker” of all the negative traits you perceived couldn’t possibly belong to you. As a result, you came back and made a stupid comment (no surprise, that is what you do) that it was actually ME who was over-posting. You implied I was posting at a faster rate and would overtake you any day.

So, since you are not capable of doing it, I did the basic arithmetic for you, and looked at the difference in the number of posts we had at that time. I then followed it up for a little while to see if the gap between us was growing or shrinking. I would occasionally post that number so you, I, and everyone else could see what was actually happening. The gap kept widening, widening, and soon reached the statistically significant level so I stopped tracking/posting it. Anyone with half a functioning brain could see the obvious truth (in retrospect that was my error—you clearly have far less than half a functioning brain).

THAT was what “2503” was. How many MORE posts you had at that time than I did.

At that time, over the period of roughly two years, a DIFFERENCE of 2503 seemed, at least to me, to be a noticeable number, and since it was growing over time, I seemed clear proof that YOU post a lot more than I do. That YOU were destined to be one of the high flying starts of posting quantity (if not quality).

So now, two years later, let’s do an update: I have (counting this one) 4158 posts. YOU have 12945--simply awe inspiring when you realize many of us actually have jobs. Now try and follow this, I know it can be difficult:
12945 minus 4158 is a mind numbing 8787 post DIFFERENCE.
YOU have posted 8787 times MORE than I have.

In roughly the first two years you posted 2503 times more than I did.
In the next two years (roughly) you posted an astonishing 6284 times more than I did.

Wow, you are flying so high and so fast I give up. I concede that I will NEVER catch up to your post count (not that I would ever want to). You truly are a master of pulp fiction posting.

So enjoy your 13,000th post, it is only 55 away. It seems like just yesterday we were all counting down (up) to your 12,000th post. And, just to keep you motivated, that will put you only a few hundred posts below the Top 15! Go, IB, go! Go, IB, go! You can probably put up a few hundred posts in a day or two. None of them might be worth reading, but we are talking quantity not quality here.

Suffice it to say that you're a lying SOB, Old-Twerp. That it was about"post count" is very evident in the reply, Old-Twerp. And it's still your same lame-ass, straw man "post count" argument you continue to stupidly trot out when you are having your stupid ass handed to you in an exchange, Old-Twerp.

Originally Posted by A.Reader

Thanks T! I'd forgotten that, but so true. :roll1:

It's obvious you couldn't find a post to factually back-up your previous jackass accusation, A.Reader.

BTW, have you been "lurking" for two years, A.Reader? How else could you as someone who subscribed to this forum only in 2014 remember something that went on in another forum in 2012, A.Reader? You are obviously and dishonestly one of Old-Twerp's coached dupes, A.Reader.

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

LMAO! He can't handle the truth, Old-T!