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 ...
Well, other than your personal attacks on me they were.
and DiLorenzo is Kool-Aid Central for pro-Confederate propaganda lies.
And you are Kool Aid Central for the neo-yank False Cause Losers propaganda team. Touche!
who is right in most everything he says -- most everything.
Except when he disagrees with you, perhaps?
But we should also note that none of this has anything to do with Honest Abe Lincoln
Unbelievable! Why do you continue to defend the defenseless? Historians from every spectrum are beginning to show lincoln for the tyrant that he was. Numerous examples have been hyperlinked to you but you continue to poke your head in the sand/Kool Aid jug and deny, deny, deny.
I remember a few months back when you were in complete denial about the yankee involvement in slavery but you finally capitulated under the barrage of undeniable facts presented to you. Is the lincoln myth too strong for you to let go?
I say: if you oppose Original Intent, then you oppose the Constitution itself.
Then you'll agree that lincoln was opposed to the Constitution. I think we're making progress.
Well, the good Judge Napolitano argues, in effect, against the Founders' Original Intent, saying the document was flawed from the beginning in allowing the Founders to increase Federal power beyond what anti-Federalists approved of.
First of all, the fact that amendments and a process to add amendments are part of the constitution shows that the Founders understood that they or the constitution wasn't perfect, e.g. the protection of slavery.
Second, the Constitution is only as strong as the elected and those that elect them. In the case of lincoln, the South knew that he was going to trample all over the Constitution and they seceded. In the case of 0bama, we conservatives also knew that he was going to trample all over the Constitution, however, our only recourse, thanks to lincoln, is to hope that we can have a fair and free election and replace him with a patriot.
the Founders' Original Intent on secession is clear: constitutional secession is by mutual consent
Please provide evidence of that from the Founders own words.
Your 'mutual consent' argument comes from the T v W Chase dicta. Not a shred of evidence to back it up. Zero, zilch, nada. In addition, how can you maintain that I'm free if I have to have your consent to exercise my freedom?
And the slave-holders' declaration of war
I'm gonna type this slowly so that maybe you'll get it this time: a declaration of war simple means that a state of war exists, not that you've started one. You've been shown who started the war and why. The Judge and others painted that picture quite clearly.
The US Constitution says nothing directly about "secession".
What a tick. You stated above that "constitutional secession is by mutual consent". Which is it? Does it say nothing or does it define the terms?
I'm anxious to see how you try to weasel out of this one.
It says a lot about people who make war on the United States, or provide them with aid and comfort, committing rebellion, insurrection, invasion and domestic violence.
You've show time and again that you're fast and loose with the facts and a staunch defender of the neo-yank False Cause Loser mythology. The above sentence is simply more evidence of that.
Those are the constitutional provisions Lincoln used to defeat the slave-holders' rebellion.
Actually, lincoln used unconstitutional acts to wage a slave traders invasion to collect back taxes.
What bothers you so much about the assertion that Christianity is a religion of the people, rather than the religion of the politically powerful?
Incest is sexual relations between people who are forbidden to marry. Since I was legally married, that is just not a correct description of my situation. When you assert that it was my situation you bear fast witness. And your Christ bears the pain of your sin of bearing false witness.
Yet I forgive you.
The Federal government did not collect the back tariff not paid while the pretended confederacy did not pay legally obligated tariff to the US. Nor did the US government attempt to collect back tariff.
Thus, when you assert that the US government, or its head of state, Lincoln, made war to collect back taxes, you bear false witness. The punishment for your sin of false witness is paid by your Christ. If you love your Christ, you will stop bearing false witness.
What the Constitution says is that controversies that involve the states and the federal government are to be resolved in court, and by implication, shooting is not considered proper etiquette, so when South Carolina started shooting, it was unconstitutional insurrection.
The term pagan is from the Latin paganus, an adjective originally meaning “rural”, “rustic” or “of the country.” As a noun, paganus was used to mean “country dweller, villager, and contrasted with the religion in favor in the imperial court.
In that sense, Christianity is now a pagan religion. Christianity is, to my way of thinking, not in favor in our government. It is in favor in ‘flyover country’ which would be rural, rustic places, or in small villages.
Some (Muslims and Jews, and perhaps the occasional Roman Pagan) see the doctrine of the Trinity as approaching polytheism.
The Buddha said “The things of G-d are unknown, and unknowable, so why argue?”
In no dictionary definition does "pagan" apply to Christianity -- indeed, the dictionary tells us the word was first used in the 14th Century, meaning it was coined by educated Christians to describe rural heathens.
So, if you wish to tell us that Christianity today is stronger amongst independent rural folks than among our more educated urban elites, then just say that.
Don't be calling people "pagans" when all you really mean is rural.
And don't be insulting us rural folks, pal.
Incest is sexual intercourse between close relatives that is usually illegal in the jurisdiction where it takes place and/or is conventionally considered a taboo. My statement stands and I do not bear false witness just because you found a avenue to practice your perversion legally. The fact that you shopped for a state that would allow you to marry your first cousin is no different than the stinking homosexuals getting married in states that allow such doings in order to practice their brand of perversion ‘legally’. Abortion is legal too, pal, but it’s a perversion and an abomination.
I think that you have caused more pain for Christ than I ever will.
Look up the Morrill Tariff Act, the highest import tax in U.S. history, which raised import taxes on Southerners from 20% to 40%.
The Permanent Slavery Amendment passed by the U.S. Congress and endorsed by Lincoln was a political maneuver by the North to bring the Southern States back into the Union to pay this new higher 40% tax to finance the U.S. Government and subsidize Northern business monopolies. When that didn't work, lincoln started a war. The South was eventually forced back into the union and feds began collecting taxes from those that had anything left to pay it with.
The punishment for your sin of false witness is paid by your Christ. If you love your Christ, you will stop bearing false witness.
We know where you stand on Christianity. You statement above is dripping with sarcasm and is an insult to all Christians. You're using statements like that as a joke to entertain your arrogant demeanor or simply to troll for entertaining replies. There doesn't seem to be any limit to your baseness. I'm sure that you and your liberal friends get a kick out of poking fun at Christians but I'm not going to engage in your sick, libtard game.
Despite our differences on another subject, my hat is off to you for the above.
These are critical constitutional changes which helped cause the explosion of Federal Government, from 2% of GDP in 1913 to around 25% today.
Napolitano says that's where we should start to restore the Free Republic, as it was originally designed.
And where did the allegedly "conservative" South stand on these two amendments, in 1913?
Here is a listing of the Old Confederacy, and how eager they were to pass the Progressive era amendments.
Note that Alabama was the nation's first state to ratify the 16th Amendment, and that Texas, North Carolina, Tennessee, Arkansas and Louisiana all ratified both amendments:
|Secession #||16th Amendment||17th Amendment|
|#1 = South Carolina:||16th = #3||17th = rejected|
|#2 = Mississippi:||16th = #5,||17th = rejected|
|#3 = Florida:||16th = rejected,||17th = rejected|
|#4 =Alabama:||16th = #1||17th = rejected|
|#5 = Georgia:||16th = #8,||17th = rejected|
|#6 = Louisiana:||16th = #34,||17th = #37|
|#7 = Texas:||16th = #9,||17th = #16|
|#8 = Virginia:||16th = rejected,||17th = rejected|
|#9 = Arkansas:||16th = #29,||17th = #19|
|#10 = North Carolina:||16th = #20,||17th = #7|
|#11 = Tennessee:||16th = #28,||17th = #34|
Only Virginia & Florida rejected both Progressive amendments.
Pennsylvania rejected income tax, but ratified direct election of Senators.
Christianity is your religion, not mine, so your failures to live up to your religion are your failures, not mine.
You asserted that the war was made for back taxes. That was a lie. A fine lie from one who pretends to be a Christian. The Morrill tax was passed before Lincoln took office, and after the pretended secession of South Carolina, so you can not blame the tax on Lincoln, not can you blame the rebellion on the tax. Rather, the tax was, and could only be passed after the representatives of the south withdrew. So that is another lie. Please stop the lies. By your faith, please stop the lies.
Since I am a pagan, I didn’t think it was an insult. Rather, I looked at it as a complement. If you think the complement is not justified, I will withdraw it for your case.
You assert that the Morrill tariff raised import taxes on southerners. Rather, it raised them on all imports. Most tariffs were paid by northern ports. Northern industries would import goods, add value to them by manufacture, and sell them all over the country.
The tax was then 40% *or what ever it was on the particular good, they had a list with different rates on different goods* on the base good, with the tax on the US work as zero. For example, cloth was imported, cut to measure, stitched, and sold as clothes. The value of the cloth would be a fraction (say 1/4th for an example) of the finished good, so the 40% tax would be (again, for an example) only 10% of the finished product. Tariffs tended to be paid on luxury goods, and few slaves or small holders bought much in the way of luxury goods.
If the south was opposed to the Morrill tariff, they could have shown up and voted against it.
If the south didn’t want to start a war they could have not opened fire.
The sad fact is, they wanted a war to bring in Viginia and perhaps Kentucky/Maryland/Delaware, so they opened fire. They wanted to drive a wedge between US manufacturers and southern small holders, so they abstained from the vote on the Tariff. That was their strategy. It failed just as their strategy of fielding 3 candidates for President. The southern partisans have complained of the results ever since, and blamed others for their foolishness.
Again, support for the Morrill tariff helped Lincoln get elected. One feature of the Morrill tariff was to have specific duties on items, rather than have a percentage of the value: That percentage feature had been an opportunity for corrupt importers to defraud the government and gain and advantage over honest importers. Opposition got the Democratic party defeated, and support for the Morrill tariff was a vote for fair taxation and good government. The US kept that in place with modifications until 1913, and the US economy grew rapidly, paid off the war, repaired the war damage. After Wilson’s election, the tariff was lowered.
Taxes must be collected somewhere. A tax on luxury goods was politically possible. Taxes that prevent, as far as possible corruption, are preferred by me over taxes which encourage corrupt deals. Of course wars are expensive, and if the rebels had not opened fire, the cost of the war could have been averted. Yet they opened fire.
Sounds like you are playing word games which are neither understood nor appreciated, nor appropriate to this (or most any) Free Republic thread.
If you wish to discuss or debate your religious ideas, including your opinions about the definition of the word "pagan", then start your own thread, and invite people to comment.
This is not the thread for it.
I didn’t raise it.
Do a search to find out who did.
Argue with him.
There are several answers to that allegation:
cowboyway: "I remember a few months back when you were in complete denial about the yankee involvement in slavery but you finally capitulated under the barrage of undeniable facts presented to you."
There were few to zero "Yankees" involved in:
The historical fact that slavery was legal in all American colonies in 1776 is nowhere disputed.
Nor is the fact that northern states only gradually abolished their own slavery.
Nor is the fact that the United States did not vigorously enforce the 1808 ban on International shipments of slaves until 1858 -- thus allowing pirates to operate with more-or-less impunity.
But any suggestions that "yankees" were primarily responsible for Southern slavery is just ludicrous denial of historical reality.
cowboyway: "In the case of lincoln, the South knew that he was going to trample all over the Constitution and they seceded."
Correct: in November of 1860 there was no mutual consent to secession, and no "usurpations or abuses of power" having that same effect.
Those are the Founders' Original Intent for constitutional secession, and no such conditions then existed.
So, in effect, the Deep-South slave-holders seceded "at pleasure", an act which is not authorized by the Constitution.
In 1860 the Deep-South slave-holders began to secede "at pleasure" out of fear for what a newly elected President Lincoln might do against slavery, at some time in the future -- not from any existing "usurpations or abuses of power."
cowboyway: "Please provide evidence of that from the Founders own words."
Numerous quotes to that effect have been cited here on past threads.
One of the clearest expressions comes from James Madison, in 1830:
"Applying a like view of the subject to the case of the U. S. it results, that the compact being among individuals as imbodied into States, no State can at pleasure release itself therefrom, and set up for itself.
"The compact can only be dissolved by the consent of the other parties, or by usurpations or abuses of power justly having that effect.
It will hardly be contended that there is anything in the terms or nature of the compact, authorizing a party to dissolve it at pleasure."
cowboyway: "a declaration of war simple means that a state of war exists, not that you've started one."
But simultaneously with, indeed often before their unconstitutional declarations of secession, Deep-South slave-holders began to commit many acts of increasing rebellion or war, culminating in their violent attack and seizure of Fort Sumter in April 1861 -- soon followed by their formal declaration of war on the United States, on May 6, 1861.
No Confederate soldier was killed by Union action until after the Confederacy declared war on the United States.
cowboyway: "You stated above that 'constitutional secession is by mutual consent'. Which is it?"
The Constitution says nothing about secession, period.
Founders' expressions of Original Intent regarding secession all reflected Madison's view expressed above -- that it must be by mutual consent or "usurpations or abuses of power" having that same effect.
No such condition existed in November 1860.
cowboyway: "Actually, lincoln used unconstitutional acts to wage a slave traders invasion to collect back taxes."
Sorry, pal, but I'd say: when you've reached that level of insanity, you are probably well beyond the reach of reason or facts.
Please provide source documentation for where this expression was adopted by the Founders and incorporated in their work.
BJK said: Founders' expressions of Original Intent regarding secession all reflected Madison's view expressed above...
Please provide said expressions from the Philadelphia Convention.
BJK said: ...their unconstitutional declarations of secession...
Please provide source documentation proving the declarations of secession were unconstitutional at the time of their adoption.
The old Soviet propaganda technique was “poisoning the well”. They would accuse their opponent of what they did. That tended to disarm truth tellers.
When southern partisans assert that Lincoln was a tyrant (illegitimate ruler, usurper, one who rules by force) we should recognize that as what Jeff Davis and his ilk were. The southern rebellion was illegitimate, Jeff Davis pretended to the legitimate powers of the elected president, the southern states pretended to ‘at pleasure’ usurpation by individual states of powers secured to the states and people as a whole.
When southern partisans assert that the northern states were responsible for slavery in the south in 1860, we should recognize that the southern states were responsible for the existence of their domestic institutions, and in fact wanted to interfere with local government in the north, to inflict on them the domestic institutions of the southern states.
“Poisoning the well” is a dishonest debate tactic, and says more about those who use it than it does about reality.
I got a chuckle from at your comment. I’ve always known the technique by a different name - Liberal Projection. But that can’t be the case here since we’re all conservatives on this forum....right? ;-)
By some definitions of conservative...
A friend was arguing that slavery was justified for people who couldn’t take care of themselves. He had scriptural references. He asserted that it was the South that sought to see if persons of African ancestry could be trained to the point of independence, while the Northern states forbade that.
I pointed out that as practiced in the American South, it was not justified, because people who could not take care of themselves didn’t come neatly identified as children of others who couldn’t take care of themselves. Further, it was northern states which permitted persons of African ancestry to be free, while Southern states had slave codes, black codes which forbade the experimentation that he asserted. Further, I mentioned Banneker who wrote an almanac, made a wooden clock, and helped with the survey what became the District of Columbia. He was free, but his accomplishments should have called into question the racial issues on which the justification of slavery was based.
The Europeans tried to enslave everyone. Whites could slip away, and would be presumed free wherever they went. Native Americans could slip away to the nearest Indian village, and return with a raiding party. Africans were ‘color coded’ and so were presumed to be slaves, unless they had appropriate documentation, and were presumed to be slaves, and thus kept disarmed as a general rule.
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.