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

[Old-T]

Dear Pathetic & Dishonest IBMassa,

So where have you gone this time:

--You say an individual, albeit a mayor, expressing his opinion is equivalent to taking up arms that led to the death of over a half million people?

--You try to make Dixie slavery the victim by insisting that is was all someone else's fault

--You ad lie after lie to the point even you have no clue where any grain of original truth might be: I NEVER said the civil war was an ASSURED way to end slavery. Not even close. I said the traitorous southerners started the civil war because of the slavery issue--as you yourself pointed out to start this discussion.

--You lie again when you claim I said 2503 wasn't about post count. Not what I said at all. YOU inferred it was MY POST COUNT. I said it was not. Now you are pouting (and telling lies) because you are pissed that you are too forgetful to remember what it was really about. Old hint from many lawyers: Don't bring up issues you don't know the answer to already. I told you when you first dredged up that post that you were putting the claymore under your own feet because you were clueless. Well, guess what, YOU WERE CLUELESS!!!! BOOM!!!!! Poor stupid, clueless, pitiful IB.

Now why don't you write some creative military/historical fiction in which the Good southerners defeat the Evil northerners, institute slavery in all states, lynch every filthy New Yorker who profited even one penny from slavery--no matter how indirectly--and closes as your great-great-great gandpappy gets his first slave whipping toy from his dad. I'm sure it will be a best seller.

PS: I have never used your post count as an argument why your posts are worthless. Each individula post of yours earns its worthless rating on its individual merrit.

I only bring up your post count when you are reaching a noticeable milestone as you are now. More as a curio, rarely as the main topic. So in that light, after already pointing out your lunacy, I will now just toss in that, by the way,
only 49 to go!!!!!!

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Old-T

Dear Pathetic & Dishonest IBMassa,

So where have you gone this time:

--You say an individual, albeit a mayor, expressing his opinion is equivalent to taking up arms that led to the death of over a half million people?

--You try to make Dixie slavery the victim by insisting that is was all someone else's fault

--You ad lie after lie to the point even you have no clue where any grain of original truth might be: I NEVER said the civil war was an ASSURED way to end slavery. Not even close. I said the traitorous southerners started the civil war because of the slavery issue--as you yourself pointed out to start this discussion.

--You lie again when you claim I said 2503 wasn't about post count. Not what I said at all. YOU inferred it was MY POST COUNT. I said it was not. Now you are pouting (and telling lies) because you are pissed that you are too forgetful to remember what it was really about. Old hint from many lawyers: Don't bring up issues you don't know the answer to already. I told you when you first dredged up that post that you were putting the claymore under your own feet because you were clueless. Well, guess what, YOU WERE CLUELESS!!!! BOOM!!!!! Poor stupid, clueless, pitiful IB.

Now why don't you write some creative military/historical fiction in which the Good southerners defeat the Evil northerners, institute slavery in all states, lynch every filthy New Yorker who profited even one penny from slavery--no matter how indirectly--and closes as your great-great-great gandpappy gets his first slave whipping toy from his dad. I'm sure it will be a best seller.

You're pathetically stupid, Old-Twerp, it was Mr. Lincoln's call for 75,000 soldiers to invade the South that lead to the deaths of some 750,000 Americans. In fact, Old-Twerp, some of those initial recruits caused the first Civil War deaths in the City of Baltimore were soldiers killed 12 Maryland citizens, Old-Twerp. And your lying-ass damn well insisted that the war was necessary to end slavery, Old-Twerp. BTW, you're a lame-ass liar, Old-Twerp: it was your lame-ass, straw man "post count" argument, you perpetual jackass.

[Old-T]

You are wrong as usual. I said I did not believe the war could be averted while at the same time eliminating slavery.

And by your Lincoln is Guilty logic:
--May walks into bank with a gun, grabs money, shoots at the guards but misses, runs out
--Police chase him, shooting starts, people die
--It is the police's fault and the poor robber is the inocent victim because the bank made too much profit.

You are a buffoon, and again, your Lincoln hatred and northerner hatred is clearly showing.

PS: Of course it was my "argument". I just didn't use it as a straw man as you accuse me. It was no more than a public service announcement. Giving credit where credit is due, to someone with far more posts than I have. FAR more.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Old-T

You are wrong as usual. I said I did not believe the war could be averted while at the same time eliminating slavery.

And by your Lincoln is Guilty logic:
--May walks into bank with a gun, grabs money, shoots at the guards but misses, runs out
--Police chase him, shooting starts, people die
--It is the police's fault and the poor robber is the inocent victim because the bank made too much profit.

You are a buffoon, and again, your Lincoln hatred and northerner hatred is clearly showing.

PS: Of course it was my "argument". I just didn't use it as a straw man as you accuse me. It was no more than a public service announcement. Giving credit where credit is due, to someone with far more posts than I have. FAR more.

Your analogies are stupid, and you're a liar, Old-Twerp. It was your stupid contention, Old-Twerp, that civil war was necessary unless Buchanan could -- with executive authority only -- have abolished slavery and avoided subsequent racial discord by some other means.

[Old-T]

So, then, let's go back to the original point:

--If you claim Buchanan was a very bad president because he didn't avert the civil war

--Then there must have been something reasonable that he COULD have done to avert it

--What COULD he have done without extending slavery?

Over to you.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Old-T

So, then, let's go back to the original point:

--If you claim Buchanan was a very bad president because he didn't avert the civil war

--Then there must have been something reasonable that he COULD have done to avert it

--What COULD he have done without extending slavery?

Over to you.

Again, Old-Twerp, with your stupid precondition that civil war was necessary unless Buchanan could -- with executive authority only -- have abolished slavery and avoided subsequent racial discord by some other means.

[Old-T]

Bull shit, pure and simple. You know it, but you don't care.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Old-T

Bull shit, pure and simple. You know it, but you don't care.

You're a fuckin' hypocrite who stupidly and hypocritically measures 19th century people by 21st century standards of morality. Your stupid, hypocritical ass may as well sit in your 21st century motor vehicle and be hypercritical of 19th century equestrians for not having your exact same exact tastes in personal transportation, Old-Twerp.

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You're a fuckin' hypocrite who stupidly and hypocritically measures 19th century people by 21st century standards of morality.
On some things, why yes. Murder. Robbery. Slavery. Treason. I kind of believe they were evil in Moses' time, now, and pretty much everywhere in between. Obviously some people tried to ignore/limit/justify them (Pol Pot is my favorite example, but Caligula, Papa Joe, and a lot of others fit the bill too).

So you are one of those situational moralists. I thought you Thumpers were far more literal than that. Maybe it is selective literalism--you know, when it is convenient.

Your stupid, hypocritical ass may as well sit in your 21st century motor vehicle and be hypercritical of 19th century equestrians for not having your exact same exact tastes in personal transportation, Old-Twerp.
So now you equate transportation preferences with slavery? A pretty abysmal analogy even for you.

And since I had to post anyway--to rebut your lies and distortions--I might as well add Tick, Tick, Tick.....

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Old-T

On some things, why yes. Murder. Robbery. Slavery. Treason. I kind of believe they were evil in Moses' time, now, and pretty much everywhere in between. Obviously some people tried to ignore/limit/justify them (Pol Pot is my favorite example, but Caligula, Papa Joe, and a lot of others fit the bill too).

So you are one of those situational moralists. I thought you Thumpers were far more literal than that. Maybe it is selective literalism--you know, when it is convenient.

So now you equate transportation preferences with slavery? A pretty abysmal analogy even for you

And since I had to post anyway--to rebut your lies and distortions--I might as well add Tick, Tick, Tick.....

Here's an FYI for your stupid ass, Old-Twerp, Moses and other Israelites condoned slavery. So your stupid analogy and your stupid attempts to project your 21st century morality onto peoples living in another eras and your stupid, lame-ass focus on your straw man "post count" only serves to underscore your stupidity, Old-Twerp.

[Old-T]

Read, IBMoron. It is a useful skill. What did I say:

Murder. Robbery. Slavery. Treason. I kind of believe they were evil in Moses' time

I didn't say the Israelite didn't practice slavery. I said it was evil. I know, what is accuracy to you? Not much.

Or are you now advocating human sacrifice, genital mutilation, and foot binding? All those have been done by in societies in the past--accepted by the societies. So by your sick "logic" they were "good". All you are doing is confirming that you firmly believe in relative conditional morality.

We have learned a lot about your deprived mind in this exchange. Too bad none of it is positive.

Thirty five posts to go IB! At the rate you are going you can reach that TODAY! You are just whipping them out in stellar fashion. Go, IB, Go!!!!

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Old-T

Read, IBMoron. It is a useful skill. What did I say:

Murder. Robbery. Slavery. Treason. I kind of believe they were evil in Moses' time

I didn't say the Israelite didn't practice slavery. I said it was evil. I know, what is accuracy to you? Not much.

Or are you now advocating human sacrifice, genital mutilation, and foot binding? All those have been done by in societies in the past--accepted by the societies. So by your sick "logic" they were "good". All you are doing is confirming that you firmly believe in relative conditional morality.

We have learned a lot about your deprived mind in this exchange. Too bad none of it is positive.

And the rejoinder was: "your stupid attempts to project your 21st century morality onto peoples living in other eras ... only serves to underscore your stupidity, Old-Twerp."

[Old-T]

Unlike you, I believe the basic fundamentals of morality are not so mutable.

So if you lived in Germany in 1944 you would have been all for gassing Jews and gypsies because "those were the morals of the time and place". In that case, why don't you praise the North Korean government because they set the moral tone for the country in 2014.

Stand up and actually have an opinion. Quit claiming that the individual has no responsibility so long as "the morals of the time" think it is OK.

I am really not surprised at your hypocrisy, I am just surprised that you have so publicly and blatantly admitted it.

Simple YES/NO quiz time, IBHypocrite:

You say slavery in the south was morally good because that was the prevailing moral code of the time. You have said that very clearly and repeatedly in this thread.

So do you also say Auschwitz was morally good because it was the prevailing moral code of 20th century Nazi Germany?

Logically you should--that would be consistent. If you answer "NO", then please explain your hypocrisy.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Old-T

Unlike you, I believe the basic fundamentals of morality are not so mutable.

So if you lived in Germany in 1944 you would have been all for gassing Jews and gypsies because "those were the morals of the time and place". In that case, why don't you praise the North Korean government because they set the moral tone for the country in 2014.

Stand up and actually have an opinion. Quit claiming that the individual has no responsibility so long as "the morals of the time" think it is OK.

I am really not surprised at your hypocrisy, I am just surprised that you have so publicly and blatantly admitted it.

Simple YES/NO quiz time, IBHypocrite:

You say slavery in the south was morally good because that was the prevailing moral code of the time. You have said that very clearly and repeatedly in this thread.

So do you also say Auschwitz was morally good because it was the prevailing moral code of 20th century Nazi Germany?

Logically you should--that would be consistent. If you answer "NO", then please explain your hypocrisy.

You're fuckin' stupid to imagine that your current, 21st century values and beliefs have a damn thing to do with the way people of previous eras viewed their world, Old-Twerp. Especially those from 150+ years ago, Old-Twerp.

You're even more stupid to imagine that they should be measured by YOUR bombastic ruler, Old-Twerp.

And here's another FYI for you, Old-Twerp: the values held by WWII veterans -- my parent's generation (and not some bygone era you profess to imagine, Old-Twerp) -- fighting against Nazism (more directly: Japanese Imperialism; thus, freeing others to fight Nazis) were instilled in me as a youth; hence, there is no fuckin' hypocrisy between their values and mine, you moronic, fuckin' jackass.

BTW, Old-Twerp, I called you a stupid, pretentious Yankee ignoramus; never once did I make the claim that slavery was or is "morally good", you lying SOB.

[Old-T]

OK, reading your last post I think I have been mistaken. You truly don’t get it. So no insults, no rants, I will take one attempt to see if I can get the message across:

You say, relative to slavery:

You're fuckin' stupid to imagine that your current, 21st century values and beliefs have a damn thing to do with the way people of previous eras viewed their world, Old-Twerp. Especially those from 150+ years ago

However y also say (essentially) that relative to Nazis:

21st century values and beliefs have everything thing to do with the way people of previous eras viewed their world, if it was only 75 years ago

Just to be clear, I completely agree with you about the Nazis. I too had my father and uncles serve in WW-II, though mostly in the Pacific. 70 years is not enough for me to absolve the Nazis from what they did. They were wrong. I do not believe those basic morals change in 75 years.

I apply the same logic when I say 150 years is not enough for me to absolve the slave owners from what they did. They were wrong. I do not believe those basic morals change in 150 years.