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 ...
If you wan to look at it very coldly, an 18th century slave was $100,000 in 2000 dollars. Plus food, housing and insurance(most slave insurance companies were in NE by the way). A modern pice of farm equipment probably costs the same. How many people whip, beat and fail to change the oil in there combines? No owner in there right mind would purposely abuse their slaves, it just doesn't make sense. Why would insurance companies insure a slave? Heck all the owner would do is make the slave "have an accident" and collect the money.
You think you’re winning converts by throwing out insults? You aren’t, you’re just embarrassing yourself.
The illegally seceding rebels probably shouldn’t have started the shooting by attacking that Federal fort. If Governor Jerry Brown ordered the Cali state police to start shooting up that naval base in San Diego would you be down with that?
I’m much more disgusted with states leaving to form their own country on the basis of preserving and expanding slavery than I am with Lincoln fighting a war to keep them in the Union.
What I said is nothing compared to the crap I've received over the years from the noble Northern "Historians" on Free Republic.
Let's remove another scale shall we?
a number of insurance companies wrote policies insuring slave owners against the loss, damage, or death of their slaves.
Reference: Slave insurance in the United States
Attorney Deadria Farmer-Pallmann discovered an 1852 circular that named insurers that serviced some of these policies. National Loan Fund Life Assurance Company distributed a circular entitled. "A Method by Which Slave Owners May Be Protected From Loss" which named The Merchants Bank and The Leather Manufactures Bank as institutions able to pay and adjust claims. Under a typical policy a slave could be insured for $500.00 with an annual premium of about $11.25.
I can get testy and my memory isn’t perfect but I don’t recall calling you or anyone else on this thread anything like “an ignorant puppy with scales on your eyes”. If I did I apologize. I am not responsible for what other people may have said to you “over the years”.
You are not cut out for WBTS threads. These threads require really thick skin and asbestos underwear. Being called a puppy is nothing to being called a racist that wants to return to slavery and your ancestors died fighting to keep their slaves because they were rapists and child molesters. Try that on for size.
This isn’t a WBTS thread - why are you going out of your way to insult someone merely for having an opinion?
2) I'm sure there is an exception, but my personal experience has been that every neo-confederate I've ever met who cites abuse of power and constitutionality---if you press him hard enough---will reveal himself a racist.
The only right that the Southerners fought over was the states' right to own another person. Period. More important, John C. Calhoun made it clear that the REAL essence of that right was to be able to own another person WITHOUT CRITICISM. Yes, folks, that freedom loving Calhoun insisted that there had to be speech codes to prevent anyone from criticizing the institution of slavery.
You use the word ‘tyrant’. What ever Lincoln was, it was not that.
After the southern rebels opened fire on the US government, as legally elected president, Lincoln constitutionally had the power to make war.
By contrast, after the southern states began their insurrection, they lost any claim they had to legal authority.
Who fired first.
Rather sad for rebel apologists to complain about the noise of gunfire.
The radical Republicans acted in response to southern attempts to reinstate slavery.
Of course it would have been nice if the southerners didn’t attempt to reinstate slavery. It would have been if they hadn’t started the war to start with.
Once they did one, the logical response was the other.
It was a Civil War. Lincoln's behavior was very mild compared to what Jefferson Davis subjected the Confederacy to.
So impy here is your chance do you want to me a racist too?
Seriously? Seriously? You are really using the other guy is worse so what my guy did okay defense?
I’ve never seen evidence that you’re a racist.
I haven’t met you. Just speaking from past experience.
You really don't get the slavery thing do you. People became slaves because they lost some battle or their tribes or their ancestors did. Instead of being killed they essentially redeemed their lives for their freedom. There were others who were piss poor who sold themselves into slavery. That's how many early immigrants made it to the new world. Usually the term of servitude for these who sold themselves was not for life, and did not involve ones children.
So if we can get around US law which prohibits all of this, I will come to clean your bathrooms. BUT ... you must find some way to redeem my life or purchase me from someone else who did, or make me a substantial financial offer for me to become your bathroom slave. Be advised that while I am your slave, you will be responsible for feeding, clothing, and sheltering me. You must also provide reasonable medical care for me, and agree to continue your care for me when I become too old and feeble to clean your bathroom. Oh, and please remember that you must give me one day a week off to do what and go where I please. I'll also need a small stipend for spending money on my day off. And BTW, you don't just have to pick me up at the airport but you must purchase my airline ticket. First Class would be nice, but I won't insist.
I'm guessing you don't read very much. Probably no Aristotle, and no Fremantle whom I recommended earlier on this thread. If you read anything, it was probably the Cliffs Notes for Uncle Tom's Cabin, which you should remember was a novel by a political advocate. And you probably haven't read your Bible. Here's a bit from Deuteronomy Chapter 15:
12. And if your brother, a Hebrew man, or a Hebrew woman, is sold to you, and serves you six years; then in the seventh year you shall let him go free from you.What's with this? Apparently it was okay for a Hebrew to enslave another Hebrew, but the master had to free the slave in the seventh year. UNLESS the slave doesn't want to be freed. Huh? I thought slavery was just so awful that all slaves just couldn't wait to run away. Could the Bible be wrong about all this, or maybe could you be?
13. And when you send him out free from you, you shall not let him go away empty;
14. You shall furnish him liberally out of your flock, and out of your threshing floor, and out of your winepress; of that with which the Lord your God has blessed you you shall give to him.
15. And you shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God redeemed you; therefore I command you this thing today.
16. And it shall be, if he says to you, I will not go away from you; because he loves you and your house, because he is well with you;
I'm not complaining about gunfire, perv. I was responding to this absurd 'preserve the union' clap-trap that you harpies go on about ad infinitum and the lie that the South started the war.
"The solution devised by Lincoln triggered a war that would kill seven hundred thousand Americans. Advised by his top military commanders that an incoming ship would be considered a threat to Confederates and would prompt an attack, Lincoln deliberately sent a ship of food provisions as well as additional armed soldiers to Fort Sumter, South Carolina. The Confederates fell for the ploy and fired the first shot. Lincoln responded by sending armed warships and deployed a total of seventy-five thousand troops to invade all of the Southern states."---Judge Andrew Napolitano
"I think War Between the States was fought over the issue of federal dominance. I think slavery was not the reason for the War Between the States. I think that Lincoln was a dictator who was terrified that by the loss of tariffs from southern ports about 55 million dollars a year in 1860. It was a huge portion of the federal government's income, which consisted at the time of tariffs, user fees and land sales. It was the loss of those ports that caused Lincoln to wage war against the states. I don't think it was the Constitution that facilitated war. I think it was monster government that facilitated the War Between the States. I think slavery would have been eradicated on its own, much as it had been in Puerto Rico and Brazil and Portugal and Great Britain and even years earlier in western Europe."---Judge Andrew Napolitano
Through treachery and criminal activity, lincoln succeeded in transforming this country from a free confederation of independent states to a centrally controlled "union" of vassal states.
When the War of Northern Aggression was lost by the South, so were the rights to freedom over an oppressive federal government that will execute its will upon its citizens/subjects/servants/slaves at gunpoint. This is the yankee legacy. This is what you conservatives-in-name-only cheer about.
" all the late and post War talk and modern propaganda about the War being a noble crusade to free the slaves and of Lincoln being the Great Emancipator is a shameless fraud. Preserving the Union was the principal purpose stated by the North. That might be called noble; if forcing states to bear a subservient and exploited status in an unwanted and to them unprofitable Union by gunpoint can be called noble. The North had more than just territory in mind when preserving the Union. Loss of the Southern States would mean loss of most tax revenues, of which over 90% were from the tariff that so burdened the South.
The Civil War was not really a civil war. Two titles for the war are most appropriate. For the South it was the War for Southern Independence. For the North it was the War to Prevent Southern Independence. It was not a glorious crusade to free the slaves. (Scruggs, The Un-Civil War, 13)
Merry Christmas, CVA. The print in post #50 is my all time favorite. I’ve got to order one of those for the cabin one of these days.
So is that a yes or no for picking you up from the airport?
Johnson? JOHNSON? A great President? A one time Presidential liar and murderer who led us into the greatest US loss of a war? Oh,...OK ...I understand where he’s coming from. Carry on.
Haha. You’ve got the first 2 letters right, you RApscallion you.
I'm wondering: Do you count: "One two heap"?
My answer to you was pretty straightforward. But you have to read the whole thing. Getting your own history from between your own ears just won't do.
Sorry I skipped ahead to the part about the Bible. I’ll read the whole thing now........and there’s a couple minutes of my life that I’ll never get back!
I’m thinking actually you should take a ship (and it’s up to me since after all a slave doesn’t tell the master what to do, it’s the other way around silly!), you’re in luck I happen to have a ship! But I’ll be giving some friends of mine a ride so I hope you don’t mind the very close quarters.
Who’s the autocratic cheiftan of your tribe? I’ll send him a bottle of scotch in exchange for your life (and those of your kids if you have any while in my service).
Also I don’t care for your name, I’ll have to think up a new one for you.
As Judge Napolitano stated, they "fell for the ploy". Sad but true. I can provide you with precise details leading up to the commencement of hostilities if you're interested.
into shooting at American solders.
Southerners were/are Americans also, pal. I think the problem with you and your yankee ancestors is that you've always considered us Southerners as second class citizens or some sort of vassals to do your yankee bidding.
That makes it's a ok. ;-p
Was it ok to invade your neighbors, make war on non-combatants, steal their land and possessions, and then keep them under occupation and force them to pledge allegiance under gunpoint all for a lie? Do you believe that might makes right?
So let's say Jerry Brown says Cali is leaving the union so they can legalize cocaine
Why shouldn't cali be able to legalize coke or weed without leaving 'the union' if the citizens of cali so desire? Are you against states rights? For the record, I'm anti-drug and I would never vote for legalizing harmful drugs unless a compelling argument could be made that would convince me otherwise, but if the state of cali, or any other state, wants to legalize something and it's not unconstitutional then why shouldn't they be able to? What business is it of the federal governments?
You may not be able to understand this but the threat of secession was the only tool in the constitutional tool kit that could prevent the federal government from becoming the oppressive, invasive home to tyrants that it has become and you yankees saw to that. Happy?
Lincoln chose to ignore the historical underpinnings of the American political system; the right of secession followed from the American Revolution as the colonists separated from the British Empire and declared their independence. President Lincoln also made the faulty assumption that the Union takes precedence over the states, as the goal was to form a more perfect Union. He failed to recognize that states are free and independent, and combined they form the Union. As Ronald Reagan would say in his first inaugural address over a century later, "the federal government did not create the states; the states created the federal government." This subtle distinction is an important aspect of State sovereignty. The United States was founded on the ideals that federal power could be challenged by the states. Lincoln overlooked the fact that the states had formed a voluntary agreement and did not have the ability to surrender their sovereignty forever to a centralized power.
Nullification was also a fundamental state right to prevent federal domination. States enjoyed the right to use nullification as a protective measure against unconstitutional federal laws by making them ineffective against their citizens. Nullification had become a states rights tradition, and both the North and the South exercised it prior to 1861. The most famous examples of this in the North centered around Northern states personal liberty laws, a series of laws that were passed in response to the Fugitive Slave Act. Even though the U.S. Supreme Court found these laws, and thus nullification, unconstitutional in the 1842 case Prigg v. Pennsylvania Northern states, yes, Northern states, continued to enact laws that criminalized the return of fugitive slaves in direct defiance of federal law. Lincoln's attempt to trample the states sovereignty, even the rights of those opposed to slavery, only heightened the conflict between the advocates of a supreme, unchecked federal government and the advocates of a modest central government, tempered by nullification. South Carolina started the trend of secession in December 1860. Concerned with preserving the Union at all costs, Lincoln was determined to use military force to bring the rebel states into line. But he did not want to be portrayed as an aggressor and needed the South somehow to ignite the conflict. This would make the Southerners look like the aggressors and would give the impression that Lincoln simply had no choice but to declare war as a defense against aggression.---Judge Andrew Napolitano from Dred Scott's Revenge; A Legal History of Race and Freedom in America
Just for the record, are you an advocate of Big Government? Do you support the 0bama regime? Do you believe that my freedom and liberty is through the consent of you and other big government types instead of God given as the Founders stated?
and has the state police shoot up Vandenberg Air Force Base after they refuse to leave.
I would feel sorry for the state police.
I know which side I'd be on. ;)
So do I. Hell, I'll bet you're ironing your brown shirt and polishing your Hope and Change buttons even as we speak.
Strange I don't recall saying Southerners weren't Americans. Perhaps I should have said "Untied States" or "Federal" soldiers. Do you understand the sentence now?
FYI I'm pretty certain all my people got to this country after your rebellion so none of my ancestors spit on yours during the war (as if it would be my fault if they did!).
You ask am I "against state's rights". I am when the states do horrible or unconstitutional things (like if Brown wanted to legalize coke). My state loves ignoring the second amendment. I feel it's entirely appropriate for the federal government to enforce the second amendment if a state or locality ignores it and I feel it would be entirely appropriate if they stopped a state from legalizing crack or pedophilia or anything like that. Oregon and assisted suicide is a good real life example.
I am, that's very interesting. Thanks.
You are only partly right that the war was fought over federal dominance. The Slave Power demanded that they dominate the federal government. Further, the Slave Power demanded that it dominate state governments, even northern states that forbade slavery.
The war was begun by the Slave Power, to give Virginia the excuse they needed for their pretended secession.
Begun by the Slave Power, for the higher cause of Slavery.
Lincoln didn’t declare war. The rebels did that, pretending to the independent identity that they legally didn’t have. Then the rebels made illegal war. Then they lost their war.
Then they filed suit asserting that what they had done was legal. They lost that too.
They and their apologists have lied about it ever since.
This kinda says all we need to know about you, in your own words.
Be fair now: he said the ‘possible’ exception of those three. So he could rank higher than #4.
Years ago, on "Brian and the Judge", Napolitano used to say George Washington was called a "terrorist," and compared him to the likes of Yasir Arafat.
I thought at the time, there must be something wrong with Napolitano -- how could he not know that the word "terrorist" was not even coined until years after the American Revolution, that it was originally connected to excessive use of an invention by a certain Doctor Joseph-Ignace Guillotin, and that in no way possible would such actions or words apply to George Washington?
Now we see, assuming cowboyway's quote is accurate, that Napolitano has fallen completely off his rocker.
That's too bad.
I think he's generally a good guy, but this kind on nonsense makes him highly suspect, in my book.
The Continentals made a point of taking care of captured British soldiers well, and in their writings contrasted that to the poor care provided by the British. After the war, about 1/3rd of the male population of seacoast towns were dead, mostly from joining the naval militia, serving as a privateer, being captured or killed, and if captured, they were kept in leaky prison hulks, ill fed, kept nearly naked.
Because of that contrast I always found the assertion of Washington as a terrorist was particularly offensive. Captured British soldiers were valuable to the Continentals, as they could exchange them for British prisoners.
Depends on what you think of as abuse.
I hope you and your friends never realize the horrors of slavery.
Once upon a time the Federal Government wanted to ban alcoholic drinks. At least they, finding no power to do so, they had the honesty to go for a constitutional amendment.
It was a bad idea, and was later repealed.
For other drugs, they didn’t want the embarrassment of multiple bad amendments and repeal amendments. So they invented the ‘tax stamp’ approach, requiring a tax stamp of 1000$ per ounce for say, Cannibis, but never getting around to printing the tax stamps, so anyone who wants to buy one needs the government to print and sell them tax stamps.
I am told that legalizing drugs would thin out the herd nicely. The drug most associated with inner city violence is alcohol, and that is legal, and taxed. The taxes on alcohol don’t seem to have much effect on violence.
Alcoholic cider is not taxed. Though distilling machinery is bulky, and gives off a distinctive scent, ‘applejack’ concentrates the alcohol through a freezing process, which is hard to control. Where I grew up, every house had a jug on the front porch (and else where) through the winter.
I read it exactly the way you wrote it, pal.
You ask am I "against state's rights". I am when the states do horrible or unconstitutional things
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. Period.
The 'slave power' included the north, pagan. As a matter of fact, if it wasn't for the yankee slave traders there wouldn't have been any slaves in the South.
The problem with you neo-yanks is that you've been completely brainwashed by the False Cause propaganda machine, i.e., the federal government that you worship.
The war was begun by the Slave Power, to give Virginia the excuse they needed for their pretended secession. Begun by the Slave Power, for the higher cause of Slavery.
Mythology and lies; the neo-yankee stock in trade.
My quote is accurate. Perhaps you can provide a credible source to your 'terrorist' comment instead of your notoriously suspect memory.
I think he's generally a good guy, but this kind on nonsense makes him highly suspect, in my book.
Your book is the book of a neo-yankee False Cause Loser. Enough said.
Why is that so hard for some to understand? It is their inherit statist nature, the collective mentality, that won't let them understand, methinks. Now the Coven thinks Judge Napolitano is crazy. These guys.....
Yankees absolutely have a 'collective' mentality. That's the reason why those oxygen stealing labor unions exist: 'collective' bargaining, 'collective' agreement, etc. It's also the reason why socialism/communism is so popular in the north.
Now the Coven thinks Judge Napolitano is crazy. These guys.....
I've been using Napolitano because he's not Southern and his facts are completely irrefutable. You'll notice that brojoke attacked the man and not what he said; typical libtard tactic.
Yankees will use any means necessary to make a profit from a situation while talking out of both sides of their 'collective' mouths the entire time.
Which is why Lincoln getting killed was very bad. If he had lived, reinstating slavery wouldn’t have been an option.
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying there. Please elaborate.
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.