Skip to comments.Great New Ad Skewers Obama Arrogance in Rating Himself the 4th Best President Ever – Video
Posted on 12/22/2011 3:04:51 PM PST by Federalist Patriot
Now this is a great ad from American Crossroads! Lets hope we see a 30-second or 1-minute version of this playing in 2012 during the General Election Campaign.
It uses Obamas own words against him, where he recently decreed himself to be essentially the fourth best President in the history of the United States in terms of his accomplishments! Theres nothing like the ego of The One.
(Excerpt) Read more at freedomslighthouse.net ...
It is possible he is confusing greatness with spending more than all the Presidents conbined?
Exactly! That is greatness in his Socialist mind.
He can only remember the names of 3 former presidents , so in his mind there are/were only 4 presidents
Lincoln was one of the worst in your opinion?
Lincoln was THE worst. He singlehandedly destroyed the government bequeathed to us by Jefferson and Madison. (I won't even mention the dead.)
In 1869 a Harvard Professor wrote, "It is as if I am not living in the country of my birth." Think about this. He didn't live in the South. The war never came to Harvard Square. He never owned slaves.
All the cr@p you've been fed about "Honest Abe" is one humongous myth. I say this as a Yankee who has never lived south of Jones Beach (on Long Island, NY). I just have learned that all they teach you in high school isn't all there is to learn.
Alligator mouth and mosquito ass. Ass expected....
Worth a chuckle - and it’d be a knee-slapper if it weren’t such a sad commentary on present-day America.
It’s difficult to laugh out loud at this arrogant, misguided and addled imbecile when the nation is on the ropes.
Maybe when he’s out of office and the damage has been undone.
Ah yes, it's so much better to get your opinions about politicians from Harvard University professors. They're always been a bastion of truth about current events, right? Silly me, I never believed my college professors claiming Bush "lied" about Iraq and I don't think those NY Yankees in the 1860s drank the "Lincoln is a war criminal" kool-aid either.
But you're a "yankee" (never heard anyone else from the North call themselves that, but okay...) who thinks it's completely Abe's fault for the civil war and buys the "war of northern aggression" stuff when the south declared slavery was an eternal "right" and fired on the north first. Somehow, Lincoln was to blame and not the slave owners.
Hey, I think I found your political soul mates:
Up yours, Pal.
I used to live in New York State, but moved to VA 5 years ago, but even before that I was not thrilled with Abe.
He suspended Habeous Corpus, and did damage to states rights. I am not saying he was the worst, but I see quite a few better.
Loved the “Sponsored by Solyndra” at the beginning. Lol!
Same to you, buddy. Northerners who sympathize with the confederate cause and deny they were promoting slavery deserve as much respect as Jews who sympathize with Palestinian terrorists and say the holocaust is a “lie”. The fact you cited a “Harvard professor” as source immediately shows you have zero credibility. It’s scary what kind of people are in academia to skew history to suit their agenda. Some of the worst Supreme Court justices were former “Harvard professors”
I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views. I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free. Source(s): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lin
From my own modern perspective I don’t like some things Lincoln did, even for his noble purpose. First income tax, military draft, suspended the writ of habeas corpus.
The civil war was the worst period in our nation’s history. Terrible means were used to achieve good ends.
But I’m sure glad the vile Confederates lost. They weren’t concerned with “State’s rights” as some claim. They wanted the federal government to force Northern states to return escaped slaves after all!!! The new GOP Congress passed a constitutional amendment that would have prevented the abolition of slavery by the federal government. Not good enough for them, they were concerned about not only keeping but spreading slavery to the new states and they didn’t give much of a damn how people in those new states may have felt.
Ron Paul thinks the federal government should have just bought and freed all the slaves. Ha! That Ron Paul. Conventional wisdom is that war was inevitable.
Anyhow as usual I digress. What I wanted to tell you is how ridiculous it is to compare Lincoln to our horrible 20th and 21st Century socialist Presidents. Our first truly terrible President was Woodrow Wilson.
If I had to pick a “worst President” candidate from Lincoln’s period it would have been his immediate predecessor the do nothing Buchanan.
Yes, but to “fix” the country today, those same things, and much more will need to be done.
“Terrible means were used to achieve good ends.”
That’s where we're headed.
“If I had to pick a worst President...it would have been his immediate predecessor the do nothing Buchanan.”
His historical society denies it but from what I’ve read it sure sounds like Buchanan was indeed a homo. I suppose the suggestion may have come from his political opponents?
“I suppose the suggestion may have come from his political opponents?”
Possible. But realistically, he was most likely a poof.
Don't you like how all totalitarians have noble purposes! I assume you think the noble purpose was to end slavery. But Lincoln kept that "purpose" a secret, didn't he. The idea the the WBTS was a war to end slavery was a post hoc justification as was the notion that slavery was the worst of all human conditions.
In fact there wasn't slavery only in the Southern Colonies, but pretty much all over the Western World in the 18th century. We were the only ones who ended it by killing the slave owners. Everywhere else it just died out with the rise of capitalism because slavery ddn't make economic sense.
They wanted the federal government to force Northern states to return escaped slaves after all!!!
Well gee, isn't that what the Northern States agreed to do? From Article IV of the United States Constitution:
No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.The new GOP Congress passed a constitutional amendment that would have prevented the abolition of slavery by the federal government. Not good enough for them, they were concerned about not only keeping but spreading slavery to the new states and they didnt give much of a damn how people in those new states may have felt.
Actually I think they wanted the people in new States to be able to decide for themselves.
What I wanted to tell you is how ridiculous it is to compare Lincoln to our horrible 20th and 21st Century socialist Presidents. Our first truly terrible President was Woodrow Wilson.
I know you think it is ridiculous. But that is because you suffer from a government education. Read Charles Adams' When in the Course of Human Events or at least read the first user review at the Amazon link I've included. Read Fremantle's Three Months in the Southern States. He was there. He wasn't a Southerner. But somehow government schools never assign this book, I think, because the picture Fremantle paints is so different from the one the winning side wanted you to have.
I stand by my assertion that Lincoln is the one who dismantled the Government of Jefferson and Madison. In response to this one Ivy Civil War Professor's reaction was, "Well, he had help." That's not much of a defense.
“Up yours, Pal.”
Hitting the egg nog a little early today, Mike??????
Oh well, Merry Christmas to yaz all.
Sort of strange thing to say for a guy who's replying to a post I made YESTERDAY.
BTW, I'm not an Egg Nog person, but I have been thinking cracking open some Bourbon.
“BTW, I’m not an Egg Nog person, but I have been thinking cracking open some Bourbon.”
I don’t understand....do you mean that people drink egg nog without bourbon in it? Wow....who would have guessed!
I’m a sour mash/single malt kinda guy myself.
I agree hands down Lincoln the tyrant was the worst president ever.
Lincoln, FDR, LBJ. The Bozo doesn’t realize it but these men are truly among the WORST Presidents in American History.
No question. It isn't even a close contest.
You’ve bought the hype. Lincoln was a ruthless butcher hell bent on consolidating Federal power. He accomplished that goal beyond his wildest dreams.
Let’s clarify things. You place the 11 seceding states of the Confederacy on the same moral plane as the Palestinians? Do I have that correct? Just checking.
That is such a beautiful flag!
Merry Christmas from MJ down in Dixieland.
Hmmm. You seem to be confusing Lincoln with the two Presidents the "states rights" south loved the most, Woodrow Wilson and FDR. Their socialist agenda won over 80% of the votes down there. Obviously "consolidating Federal power" was much more popular in the former confederacy than in the northern states. In the northern states, there was at least real opposition to FDR and Wilson's socialist agenda. In the former confederacy, the best they had was other Democrats like Huey Long actually arguing that the statism didn't go far enough.
>> Lets clarify things. You place the 11 seceding states of the Confederacy on the same moral plane as the Palestinians? Do I have that correct? Just checking. <<
The position of the Palestinian terroritories basically seems to be than the Jews have absolutely no right to live in the middle east and they should be driven to the sea or violently attacked for daring to live there. Hamas is really the ones openly admitted that though, Fatah hates the Jews too but is more coy about it.
The position of the Confederate States was that blacks were sub-human animals and that slavery was not only an eternal and inherit "right", but that it was the "natural condition" for blacks. Everyone from the Vice President of the CSA to the state declarations of secessions declared that this was indeed their goal and position. In speaks volumes that the "Confederate Constitution" says nothing different than than the U.S. Constitution about tariffs, states rights, or secession, but specifically declares that slavery cannot ever abolished. Not even the Palestinian territories are bold enough to write up a Constitution declaring Jews to be sub-human and their personal property.
You can read Three Months in the Southern States online at this link... or print it for anyone that doesn’t want to order the book. It’s well worth the read.
I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.
by: Abraham Lincoln
(1809-1865) 16th US President Source:
Fourth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois, September 18, 1858 (The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, pp. 145-146.)
I assume you think the noble purpose was to end slavery
No, to keep the union together.
The idea the the WBTS was a war to end slavery was a post hoc justification
It was a war to save the union. The true historical revisionism is when the neo-Confederates bust out their absurd mental gymnastics and claim the formation of the CSA was about something other than the preservation and expansion of slavery, that's all it was about it. It was a "country" formed for a selfish purpose not for the "preservation of Jeffersonian ideals" or some such. They lie to themselves so they can admire the CSA without supporting slavery.
as was the notion that slavery was the worst of all human conditions.
Haha. How about you and your loved ones try being slaves for a week and you tell me what you think of it. I don't have any cotton but if you want to come over and clean my bathroom I'll be happy to oblige. I promise I won't violate your wife, we wouldn't want the experience to be too realistic would we? ;)
In fact there wasn't slavery only in the Southern Colonies, but pretty much all over the Western World in the 18th century. We were the only ones who ended it by killing the slave owners.
We were the only ones where the slave owners were politically powerful enough to when the future of slavery was threatened they could go ahead and try to form their own country. And like I said, Congress passed the Corwin Amendment which would have let the Southern states keep slaves for as long as they wanted. That still wasn't good enough for them. The vague wording of that amendment was a disaster and had it been ratified it would be used today to prop up gay marriage (and polygamy in Utah) but it was a last desperate attempt to avoid war. Avoid war was something the Southern states weren't interested in. Imagine California leaving the union in a snit because Obama loses reelection (I know maybe not such a bad idea ;d).
Well gee, isn't that what the Northern States agreed to do?
WELL GEE the Slave states insisted on that provision. They sure didn't care 1 iota about free state's "state rights" not to be complicit in slavery.
Actually I think they wanted the people in new States to be able to decide for themselves.
Unless they decided to be a free state. Which is why slave-supporters rushed across the border into Kansas solely to effect the elections there. They didn't want their power in Congress reduced by the addition of new free states.
I stand by my assertion that Lincoln is the one who dismantled the Government of Jefferson and Madison
By maintaining the unity of the nation they founded. Your argument makes a lot of sense ;D. The Constitution doesn't grant states the right to just leave. You can argue it's implicit but you have a tough case to prove.
I know you think it is ridiculous. But that is because you suffer from a government education.
Nah I didn't pay attention in government school. What I "suffer from" is the lack of a psychological need to believe the Confederacy was the side in the right. Why you, being a Northerner, have that need is a mystery to me.
Sort of the same as King George then?
the notion that slavery was the worst of all human conditions. Haha. How about you and your loved ones try being slaves for a week and you tell me what you think of it.
People like you just don't ever think, I guess. I would much rather have been Thomas Jefferson's slave than a coal miner in Pennsylvania. And southern slavery was nirvana compared to what my great-grandmother had to go through 70 years ago or so. You see she was deprived of all of her possessions, taken from her home, branded, shipped off somewhere in a cattle car to a camp someplace in a foreign land where she subsisted on meager rations until even that was too inconvenient for her keepers so they killed her. Some of her children suffered the same fate, but it was probably okay with you because she never got to see them after the start of all of this. Don't you ever give me that slavery cr@p!
WELL GEE the Slave states insisted on that provision.
And the northern States AGREED to it.
Why you, being a Northerner, have that need is a mystery to me.
Because, as I have said before, I read. One of things I cited earlier in this thread actually I learned reading James McPhearson who is the most mainstream of Civil War academicians.
In the spirit of Christmas peace, have some inhalable caffeine:
My 2 cents on the Civil War: If the assassination of Lincoln and the rule of the Radical Reconstructionists. If both of those things hadn’t happened, perhaps the divide that still exists wouldn’t be there.
Ironically the crown viewed the colonies as independent states, a true (little r) republican view of governance than the Federalists and certainly more than Lincoln's empire.
If Booth had missed there would be no blacks in the USA. Lanky's plan was to ship them to Haiti and Liberia. It was a plan he endorsed and help construct.
There is no nobility here. the unreconstructed truth was Lincoln was a racist, as were most Republicans at the time. The early Republicans were using the abolitionists (sort of like the way conservatives are used now ironically) to gain power. The real reason what early Republican did not want slavery in the western territories was to keep it pure for the white race. Fact.
The unreconstructed truth is hard to take for most brainwashed Yankees. You need to be trained like a little puppy, removing one scale at a time from your eyes as to not let reality scare you.
At gunpoint. Does that not bother you?
Silly comment. First of all most slaves were not Thomas Jefferson's slaves. Second of all, coal miners could QUIT. Slaves could not. If they tried and ran away to the North they'd be sent back to be whipped because the slave states DIDN'T CARE ABOUT "STATE'S RIGHTS" when it came to Northern states rights not to be complicit in their evil institution.
And southern slavery was nirvana compared to what my great-grandmother had to go through 70 years ago or so. You see she was deprived of all of her possessions, taken from her home, branded, shipped off somewhere in a cattle car to a camp someplace in a foreign land where she subsisted on meager rations until even that was too inconvenient for her keepers so they killed her. Some of her children suffered the same fate, but it was probably okay with you because she never got to see them after the start of all of this.
It's "probably okay with me" that your family died in a Nazi concentration camp? Is that what you just said to me? What in the hell is your problem?
Now since you think slavery is not so bad when can I expect you to come over and clean my bathroom? Do I have to pick you up from the airport? That might be a problem for me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.