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

[ramblinman69]

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

actually that is a constant theme of liberals and others who vote democrat

republicans view liberals as wrong not evil...liberals view conservatives as evil

conservatives see attacks on the American way of life and liberty and the constitution and free enterprise as wrong and fight the wrongness......liberals view these things and people as evil

God damn! Someone who finally gets it! Cheers mate

[WTF]

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

actually that is a constant theme of liberals and others who vote democrat

republicans view liberals as wrong not evil...liberals view conservatives as evil

conservatives see attacks on the American way of life and liberty and the constitution and free enterprise as wrong and fight the wrongness......liberals view these things and people as evil

How the fuck do you know how anyone but you really views the world?

Originally Posted by ramblinman69

God damn! Someone who finally gets it! Cheers mate

The only thing he has ever gotten from around here is a bbj from some gay Aussie..

btw...Where you from?

[ramblinman69]

Originally Posted by WTF

The only thing he has ever gotten from around here is a bbj from some gay Aussie..

btw...Where you from?

I'll be damned, I didn't realize you were from down under mate. It's obvious you can't be a true Texan with all that bullshit you are a spewin'

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Are you asserting that Mr. Lincoln purposefully maneuvered to instigate the Civil War, Old-Twerp?

One again you completely miss the point. Go back and read JD's post #18. He said Buchanan was asleep at the wheel, didn't do what he was supposed to do, and therefore under Lincoln South Carolina succeeded, starting the civil war. So my question to JD (and now you) is: what SHOULD Buchanan have done to avert those bad things?

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Old-T

One again you completely miss the point. Go back and read JD's post #18. He said Buchanan was asleep at the wheel, didn't do what he was supposed to do, and therefore under Lincoln South Carolina succeeded, starting the civil war. So my question to JD (and now you) is: what SHOULD Buchanan have done to avert those bad things?

No, it is you who misses the point, Old-Twerp. Neither Buchanan nor Lincoln, nor any other president, was constitutionally empowered to "end slavery", as you so plainly misconceive.

Further, your stipulated point that Buchanan could "avert" the animus associated with slavery is bogus considering slavery, and the associated discord, preexisted his administration.

Someone more politically astute than Buchanan, perhaps, could have ensured that the Crittenden Compromise -- which failed by only two votes in the Senate (25 to 23) -- was accepted; thus, thwarting the American Civil War. One thing is certain, that "someone" was not Buchanan, Old-Twerp.

[Old-T]

Good Ol' IBMassa returns. I should have known your answer would have been something like that. At least you now openly admit you see nothing wrong with slavery and in fact think that the Crittenden "Compromise" that would have elevated slavery as the MOST protected right under the constitution (since there was a "no overturning" provision) as a good solution.

By the way, since I believe Lincoln was seriously opposed to the proposal, you are categorizing him as equally inept as Buchanan. I actually think you believe he was inept (if not evil) since you consider his emancipation proclamation illegal and his opposing of secession as a crime against Dixie.

Many posters on here seem to relish in being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative for fun. But I think you actually do believe your pro-slavery rhetoric. What an evil view of morality you preach. And how odd that a person like you--who says the "compromise" that would have been a great way to avert the Civil War by perpetuating slavery--has almost exclusively reviews of Black women. What does that say about you? Nothing good that I can think of.

Hey JD, do you agree Buchanan should have stood firm and pushed harder to institutionalize slavery forever? Is that the firm, decisive action you were talking about? I don't think so, so you might want to distance yourself from the man(?) who is so publicly pro-slavery.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Old-T

Good Ol' IBMassa returns. I should have known your answer would have been something like that. At least you now openly admit you see nothing wrong with slavery and in fact think that the Crittenden "Compromise" that would have elevated slavery as the MOST protected right under the constitution (since there was a "no overturning" provision) as a good solution.

By the way, since I believe Lincoln was seriously opposed to the proposal, you are categorizing him as equally inept as Buchanan. I actually think you believe he was inept (if not evil) since you consider his emancipation proclamation illegal and his opposing of secession as a crime against Dixie.

Many posters on here seem to relish in being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative for fun. But I think you actually do believe your pro-slavery rhetoric. What an evil view of morality you preach. And how odd that a person like you--who says the "compromise" that would have been a great way to avert the Civil War by perpetuating slavery--has almost exclusively reviews of Black women. What does that say about you? Nothing good that I can think of.

Hey JD, do you agree Buchanan should have stood firm and pushed harder to institutionalize slavery forever? Is that the firm, decisive action you were talking about? I don't think so, so you might want to distance yourself from the man(?) who is so publicly pro-slavery.

You're a moron, Old-Twerp, and you willfully lie and deceive. Your feeble attempt to foist 21st century values on those men is as stupid as it is dishonest, Old-Twerp. YOU asked for a solution -- "What should Buchanan have done?" -- that would have averted war, Old-Twerp, and the Crittenden Compromise was the solution proposed by 19th Century Americans trying to hold the Union together and avert a Civil War, Old-Twerp. Buchanan has been judged to be the worst president in American history because he failed to hold the Union together and avoid Civil War, Old-Twerp; not for his stance on slavery.

Cite where I ever claimed Mr. Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was illegal, Old-Twerp.

BTW, Old-Twerp, check out the anti-abolitionist stance of your fellow Ohioan: dim-retard congressman Clement Vallandigham and be proud, you pretentiously posturing SOB.

[Old-T]

Poor pathetic IBMassa. You have reaffirmed exactly what I said: you consider the perpetualization of slavery, to include making it unreliable by constitutional amendment, to be a very acceptable price to pay for averting a Civil War. I do not, and I consider your position to be evil.

I never argued that Buchanan was a good president--that is a red herring you introduced. I never said Lincoln sought war--another IB diversion. I asked a simple question: how could Buchanan avid the war, end slavery, and avoid a century of race relation problems. All you have been able to come up with is "the north should have capitulated and let slavery be the highest law of the land". That's your opinion--and you have now publicly labeled yourself a pro-slavery racist. I never thought otherwise, but now we all have confirmation.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Old-T

Poor pathetic IBMassa. You have reaffirmed exactly what I said: you consider the perpetualization of slavery, to include making it unreliable by constitutional amendment, to be a very acceptable price to pay for averting a Civil War. I do not, and I consider your position to be evil.

I never argued that Buchanan was a good president--that is a red herring you introduced. I never said Lincoln sought war--another IB diversion. I asked a simple question: how could Buchanan avid the war, end slavery, and avoid a century of race relation problems. All you have been able to come up with is "the north should have capitulated and let slavery be the highest law of the land". That's your opinion--and you have now publicly labeled yourself a pro-slavery racist. I never thought otherwise, but now we all have confirmation.

JD's point -- the point you challenged him on, Old-Twerp -- was that before Odumbo, Buchanan has long been considered the worst president in American history because the Union came apart during his administration. Hence, it is not the "red herring" you stupidly claim it is, Old-Twerp. It is, in fact, the point of this exchange, you pathetic, pretentiously-posturing jackass!

Further, you're the one who is being stupid and intellectually dishonest by suggesting that Buchanan could have ended slavery without war, Old-Twerp. Suggest you pony up with some factual evidence to support your stupid POV or STFU now that you've demonstrated your complete and utter stupidity, Old-Twerp.

FYI, Old-Twerp, you failed to back-up your lie by citing where I ever claimed Mr. Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was illegal, and, btw, did you check out your dim-retard home-boy from Ohio: Vallandigham, Old-twerp?

[Old-T]

Nope illiterate IBMassa.

JD's point was that Buchanan was inept BECAUSE he didn't stop the Civil War.

I believe things were too far gone by then that ANYONE could have prevented the war without rolling over and conceding slavery to the South. Even that might not have prevented it in the end.

Thus I did not believe Buchanan should be labeled incompetent because he was unable to do the impossible--THAT is what I challenged him on.

Of course I DID add the stipulation that it would have to be a way to avert civil war WITHOUT capitulating to the evil that was slavery. I kind of assumed that all sane and moral people here would not consider the perpetual codification of slavery to be a good thing, a price worth paying to avert a war.

Obviously I forgot IBMassa. As much as I disagree with the majority of JD's posts I don't think even he would have your pro-slavery perspective.

So let me ask again, even though you yourself see perpetual slavery as the solution a competent politician would have perused, is there anything you believe Buchanan could have done to:
--avert the war
--end slavery
--avert a century+ of race issues

Do you? Or are you going to ignore the question I asked in preference for rationalizing slavery and Dixie?

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Old-T

Nope illiterate IBMassa.

JD's point was that Buchanan was inept BECAUSE he didn't stop the Civil War.

I believe things were too far gone by then that ANYONE could have prevented the war without rolling over and conceding slavery to the South. Even that might not have prevented it in the end.

Thus I did not believe Buchanan should be labeled incompetent because he was unable to do the impossible--THAT is what I challenged him on.

Of course I DID add the stipulation that it would have to be a way to avert civil war WITHOUT capitulating to the evil that was slavery. I kind of assumed that all sane and moral people here would not consider the perpetual codification of slavery to be a good thing, a price worth paying to avert a war.

Obviously I forgot IBMassa. As much as I disagree with the majority of JD's posts I don't think even he would have your pro-slavery perspective.

So let me ask again, even though you yourself see perpetual slavery as the solution a competent politician would have perused, is there anything you believe Buchanan could have done to:
--avert the war
--end slavery
--avert a century+ of race issues

Do you? Or are you going to ignore the question I asked in preference for rationalizing slavery and Dixie?

You truly are a stupid, lying fucktard, Old-Twerp.

You are disingenuously trying to parse words, Old-Twerp. JD -- like every other American with any true knowledge of the subject -- knows that Buchanan was judged "inept", i.e., "the worst president in American history", because the Union came apart, i.e., disunion leading to "Civil War", during his administration, Old-Twerp.

BTW, Old-Twerp, it wasn't JD who first labelled Buchanan as the most inept and worst president in American history. There are innumerable others with greater knowledge than any of us judged Buchanan to be the most inept and worst president in American history. The fact that you hold your different and unsubstantiated POV in higher esteem than those innumerable others who are more knowledgeable than you only serves to highlight your pretentiousness and stupidity, Old-Twerp.

You also lyingly misrepresent the Crittenden Compromise as perpetuating slavery to the end of days, Old-Twerp, even though it did not differ substantially from the Missouri Compromise that had served to preserve the Union during a similar crisis in 1820.

And, as mentioned before, Old-Twerp, your last jackass "stipulated requirement" that there be no animus stemming from slavery was already water under the bridge before Buchanan took office; hence, your "stipulated requirement" only serves to prove your stupidity, Old-Twerp.

And, Old-Twerp, you once again ignored and failed to back-up your 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. Looks like you're now arguing Ohio is in Dixie, Old-Twerp, the way you stupidly argued Montana was in Dixie?!?!

[IIFFOFRDB]

Old-Thundercunt, Shut up, you'll never be the man your mother is...

[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.

[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.

[Yssup Rider]

I find it not at all surprising that any attempt at a logical debate is met with venom, sputum and general flinging of feces by IBIdiot.

You can beat his arguments all day long and he'll just keep on slinging shit and repeating the same debunked points.

He needs to GO THE FUCK AWAY!

Hey, Corpy, they're bringing your late model HUFF around to the drive. that signals it's about time to give us a break and disappear for a couple of months. Your meltdown can't really get much worse than this one...