Colo gun-control recall efforts outspent 7 to 1 - and won anyway

[Little-Acorn]

In Tuesday's recall election in COlorado against state senators who voted for new gun restrictions, people supporting the recall were outspent 7 to 1 by people who wanted the anti-gun Democrats to stay in office. Much of the money supporting the Democrats, came from out of state billionaires such as New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and California leftist financier Eli Broad.

And the Colorado citizens won anyway, voting the Democrat state senators out of office despite massive media buys and campaigns by wealthy Democrats.

---------------------------------------

http://thecoloradoobserver.com/2013/09/our-view-did-bloomberg-buy-the-recalls/

Our View: Did Bloomberg Buy the Recalls?

September 10, 2013
By Editor

The outcome of today’s historic recall elections are about more than the jobs of embattled Democratic state Senators John Morse and Angela Giron. They will also speak volumes about the influence of unlimited amounts of special interest money on Colorado’s elections. Will those special interests succeed? Or will voters see the left wing smear machine for what it is – crass, dishonest, willing to say anything to preserve their power.

Recall opponents, floating on oceans of money funneled into the recall contests by billionaire New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, outspent recall backers by a whopping 7 to 1 margin.

The fact that turnout numbers suggest such a competitive race given the anti-recall side’s jaw-dropping financial advantage is frankly, astounding. And the fact that so much of the money comes from out of state – the Denver Post recently reported that Bloomberg and California philanthropist Eli Broad personally stroked six figure checks – suggests that liberal elites from thousands of miles away think they can buy Colorado’s elections.

[red state]

If we, our security (or our FREEDOMS) are to carry on to our children, we MUST gain power (overwhelmingly so) in our own States, in DC and OUR White House. I truly feel that all is lost if we are to fail to do so in 2014 and 2016. Perhaps, with the 2nd term election of the so-called Lincoln-like occupier liar, it may already over but at least we do have one, last chance. Even in the UK, they refuse to use the Royal Prerogative YET our Lincoln-like occupier liar has used, continues to use and threatens to use the USA's equivalent "prerogative" through Executive Orders.

[red state]

Recall opponents, floating on oceans of money funneled into the recall contests by billionaire New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, outspent recall backers by a whopping 7 to 1 margin.....The fact that turnout numbers suggest such a competitive race given the anti-recall side’s jaw-dropping financial advantage is frankly, astounding. And the fact that so much of the money comes from out of state – the Denver Post recently reported that Bloomberg and California philanthropist Eli Broad personally stroked six figure checks – suggests that liberal elites from thousands of miles away think they can buy Colorado’s elections.


Isn't that always the case with liberals. They either shout down the opposition, commit fraud, lie, profess themselves to be more knowledgeable and will attempt to out-spend the opposition any way they can (or punish other support through the IRS). Some believe that others have no say and that their say is of a higher power (as we've seen from new members here) and I'm so glad to see that THEY are wrong and are being defeated even though we follow the rules and they do anything but.

[Gaffer]

Washername-shultz siad they lost because they need more voters. Apparently they didn't bus in enough and didn't vote often enough.

[aboutime]

Washername-shultz siad they lost because they need more voters. Apparently they didn't bus in enough and didn't vote often enough.


Gaffer. Seems like the LEGAL POT RULE in Colorado actually DID have a good outcome.

[tailfins]

Gaffer. Seems like the LEGAL POT RULE in Colorado actually DID have a good outcome.


THAT would be an interesting voter suppression tactic. Offer free weed on election day in Democrat leaning areas so they will be too stoned to vote.

[P.Kersey]

If we, our security (or our FREEDOMS) are to carry on to our children, we MUST gain power (overwhelmingly so) in our own States, in DC and OUR White House. I truly feel that all is lost if we are to fail to do so in 2014 and 2016. Perhaps, with the 2nd term election of the so-called Lincoln-like occupier liar, it may already over but at least we do have one, last chance. Even in the UK, they refuse to use the Royal Prerogative YET our Lincoln-like occupier liar has used, continues to use and threatens to use the USA's equivalent "prerogative" through Executive Orders.

The nation is waaayyy too far gone to be saved. Let it go. Special interests, "protected classes" and infiltrators have purposely wrecked this country from the inside.
After the inevitable collapse and break up there will be a faction that will rebuild another constitution based nation in their area.
That's how it always works...Then in a couple hundred years or so they will have become corrupt and oppressive and the process will repeat.

Off topic.
I appreciate your views on the despicable, lying weasel lincoln..SOOOO many have been indoctrinated to see him as some kind of great "emancipator" who freed the slaves from the evil southerners. :rolleyes:

[Arbo]

SOOOO many have been indoctrinated to see him as some kind of great "emancipator" who freed the slaves from the evil southerners. :rolleyes:

Those who are educated in our history and on Lincoln in particular see the bigger picture. I understand to some, anyone that helped those slaves achieve freedom must be considered a traitor to this country (or to his race).

But Lincoln was about far more than slavery.

[P.Kersey]

Those who are educated in our history and on Lincoln in particular see the bigger picture.

Implying something?


I understand to some, anyone that helped those slaves achieve freedom must be considered a traitor to this country (or to his race).

Who said that?
First of all lincoln didn't free any slaves, the war wasn't about slavery and I (also understand) that to "some" everything they've been fed in public school is all they know.


But Lincoln was about far more than slavery.

Yes. He was about waging total, unconditional scorched earth warfare on civilians, women and children who merely wanted to peacefully leave the union.He allowed his generals to commit war crimes in the name of the "saving the union"
He wanted the war and he started the war to be able to continue to collect unfair taxes and tariffs from the south...The south refused to continue to support a gov't that didn't represent them....the same reason the patriots fought england for independence.

[aboutime]

THAT would be an interesting voter suppression tactic. Offer free weed on election day in Democrat leaning areas so they will be too stoned to vote.



I know it was said in jest. But...think of the possibilities?

"Hey man. Ferget dat votin' stuff. Take another hit, and mellow-out!"

[Little-Acorn]

In Tuesday's recall election in COlorado against state senators who voted for new gun restrictions, people supporting the recall were outspent 7 to 1 by people who wanted the anti-gun Democrats to stay in office. Much of the money supporting the Democrats, came from out of state billionaires such as New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and California leftist financier Eli Broad.

And the Colorado citizens won anyway, voting the Democrat state senators out of office despite massive media buys and campaigns by wealthy Democrats.

---------------------------------------

http://thecoloradoobserver.com/2013/09/our-view-did-bloomberg-buy-the-recalls/

Our View: Did Bloomberg Buy the Recalls?

September 10, 2013
By Editor

The outcome of today’s historic recall elections are about more than the jobs of embattled Democratic state Senators John Morse and Angela Giron. They will also speak volumes about the influence of unlimited amounts of special interest money on Colorado’s elections. Will those special interests succeed? Or will voters see the left wing smear machine for what it is – crass, dishonest, willing to say anything to preserve their power.

Recall opponents, floating on oceans of money funneled into the recall contests by billionaire New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, outspent recall backers by a whopping 7 to 1 margin.

The fact that turnout numbers suggest such a competitive race given the anti-recall side’s jaw-dropping financial advantage is frankly, astounding. And the fact that so much of the money comes from out of state – the Denver Post recently reported that Bloomberg and California philanthropist Eli Broad personally stroked six figure checks – suggests that liberal elites from thousands of miles away think they can buy Colorado’s elections.

The best news is, the liberals spent a ton of money they could ill afford to lose, trying to maintain an unconstitutional agenda, and got nothing for it.

Keep up the good work!

[Marcus Aurelius]

...First of all lincoln didn't free any slaves, the war wasn't about slavery and I (also understand) that to "some" everything they've been fed in public school is all they know.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_Proclamation

It is common to encounter a claim that the Emancipation Proclamation did not immediately free a single slave; however, as a result of the Proclamation, many slaves were freed during the course of the war, beginning with the day it took effect. Eyewitness accounts at places such as Hilton Head, South Carolina,[60] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_Proclamation#cite_note-60) and Port Royal, South Carolina,[59] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_Proclamation#cite_note-New_York_Times_January_9.2C_1863.2C_p._2-59) record celebrations on January 1 as thousands of blacks were informed of their new legal status of freedom. Estimates of the number of slaves freed immediately by the Emancipation Proclamation are uncertain. One contemporary estimate put the 'contraband' population of Union-occupied North Carolina at 10,000, and the Sea Islands of South Carolina also had a substantial population. Those 20,000 slaves were freed immediately by the Emancipation Proclamation."[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_Proclamation#cite_note-SIFBEP-15) This Union-occupied zone where freedom began at once included parts of eastern North Carolina, the Mississippi Valley, northern Alabama, the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia, a large part of Arkansas, and the Sea Islands of Georgia and South Carolina.[61] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_Proclamation#cite_note-61) Although some counties of Union-occupied Virginia were exempted from the Proclamation, the lower Shenandoah Valley, and the area around Alexandria were covered.[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_Proclamation#cite_note-SIFBEP-15) Emancipation was immediately enforced as Union soldiers advanced into the Confederacy. Slaves fled their masters by means of wagons and horseback as well as on foot.

dumb ass.

[red state]

Implying something?



Who said that?
First of all lincoln didn't free any slaves, the war wasn't about slavery and I (also understand) that to "some" everything they've been fed in public school is all they know.



Yes. He was about waging total, unconditional scorched earth warfare on civilians, women and children who merely wanted to peacefully leave the union.He allowed his generals to commit war crimes in the name of the "saving the union"
He wanted the war and he started the war to be able to continue to collect unfair taxes and tariffs from the south...The south refused to continue to support a gov't that didn't represent them....the same reason the patriots fought england for independence.


SPOT ON!!! The South was being taxed differently and was never allowed to SLOWLY get away from slavery as the north was allowed. Even in Lincoln's speeches, he made particular mention that he was not hell bent on freeing anyone but was hell bent on forcing State to comply with his (the NORTH's) demands. It is simple history that SOME overlook or ignorantly disagree on. I do agree that slavery should have been abolished after the Constitution was written. I wish to God that we had never had slaves to begin with cuz we would have definitely been a much better, stronger Nation. Whether Lincoln was an awful man who condoned or organized the raids on ALL Southerners (both poor with no slaves or wealthy with 100's of slaves) is debatable but the fact of the matter is.....The South was being treated unfairly and as if they were not part of the Union and were well within their rights to succeed. I am of Cherokee/Scott heritage with Italian/Irish and I can tell you now that those mountain folks were NEVER treated well by our gov. We (The Cherokee) fought for the US and have been forced from our lands (both white and Native American) more than once and enough becomes enough at a certain point so the burning or our cabins and the attacks upon our mountain neighbors is why we will always fight against BIG GOV. and regardless of how you look at lincoln....he was simply another big gov. guy who left many blacks, whites and Native Americans to starve while, at the same time, increasing the BOOT TO THE NECK that started it all to begin with. Thank God for Texas cuz many were forced to flee to this new "REPUBLIC" who happened to be our ally when we needed them just as we were theirs when TEXAS needed us most. If push comes to shove, our new lincoln-like president as he has been affiliated will force another war between the liberals and the Conservatives. We are not vastly outnumbered or without industry as we were in the war between the States.....which was THE most UN-civil war in our history.

Good for you PK for bringing up some good points....I suppose you will now be considered part of some "horseman" group now but whatever group that a misinformed know-it-all may attempt to lump you into or IMPLY that you are not as informed as he/she/it may be regarding history....you are SPOT ON while correcting the biased history that the more ignorant spout from their higher-than-thou lips.

[P.Kersey]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_Proclamation


dumb ass.

First of all, no president can (legally) evade settled law that he doesn't "like" by issuing a "proclamation". That's not how the three branches of gov't work. Slavery was a legal institution.

Second; a president can "proclaim" anything he wants but it has no effect in a foreign country...and the south had seceded and was a sovereign nation on its' own.

lincoln had no authority in the south.Period...

He issued his fake "proclamation" to inflame the slaves and destabilize the south and also to pretend to seize the moral "high ground" which would make the south look bad and (he hoped) isolate it from foreign aid.

lincoln couldn't have cared less about slavery except to use it as a lever to manipulate people.

Hey..if you're ever down this way let me know. I'd like to offer you the opportunity to have lunch with me sometime and you can call me any name you like then, son.

[aboutime]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_Proclamation


dumb ass.


Marcus. Does it sound to you, like it sounds to me? As in. Does Arbo have a twin?????

[P.Kersey]

SPOT ON!!! The South was being taxed differently and was never allowed to SLOWLY get away from slavery as the north was allowed. Even in Lincoln's speeches, he made particular mention that he was not hell bent on freeing anyone but was hell bent on forcing State to comply with his (the NORTH's) demands. It is simple history that SOME overlook or ignorantly disagree on. I do agree that slavery should have been abolished after the Constitution was written. I wish to God that we had never had slaves to begin with cuz we would have definitely been a much better, stronger Nation. Whether Lincoln was an awful man who condoned or organized the raids on ALL Southerners (both poor with no slaves or wealthy with 100's of slaves) is debatable but the fact of the matter is.....The South was being treated unfairly and as if they were not part of the Union and were well within their rights to succeed. I am of Cherokee/Scott heritage with Italian/Irish and I can tell you now that those mountain folks were NEVER treated well by our gov. We (The Cherokee) fought for the US and have been forced from our lands (both white and Native American) more than once and enough becomes enough at a certain point so the burning or our cabins and the attacks upon our mountain neighbors is why we will always fight against BIG GOV. and regardless of how you look at lincoln....he was simply another big gov. guy who left many blacks, whites and Native Americans to starve while, at the same time, increasing the BOOT TO THE NECK that started it all to begin with. Thank God for Texas cuz many were forced to flee to this new "REPUBLIC" who happened to be our ally when we needed them just as we were theirs when TEXAS needed us most. If push comes to shove, our new lincoln-like president as he has been affiliated will force another war between the liberals and the Conservatives. We are not vastly outnumbered or without industry as we were in the war between the States.....which was THE most UN-civil war in our history.

Good for you PK for bringing up some good points....I suppose you will now be considered part of some "horseman" group now but whatever group that a misinformed know-it-all may attempt to lump you into or IMPLY that you are not as informed as he/she/it may be regarding history....you are SPOT ON while correcting the biased history that the more ignorant spout from their higher-than-thou lips.

Thanks for the kind words.
Whatever leftist/statists call me has no effect. They're doing the best they can with what they have...Bless their little hearts.

The truth is large and trumps govt. propaganda and that's all that matters.
Many in the south have never forgiven the govt for invading, wrecking and occupying our homeland. Things wouldn't be as they are now if we were our own nation.

Just as the patriots in 1776 fought tyranny and oppression, my ancestors were patriots for at least trying to secede peacefully. After the north invaded, they did what honorable people do when their homeland is attacked.

Oh well. Maybe next time. ;)

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=664306#post664306)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_Proclamation


dumb ass.



First of all, no president can (legally) evade settled law that he doesn't "like" by issuing a "proclamation". That's not how the three branches of gov't work. Slavery was a legal institution. It was an Executive Order...

The Emancipation Proclamation was an executive order (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order) issued by President Abraham Lincoln (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln) on January 1, 1863, as a war measure during the American Civil War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War), to all segments of the Executive branch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_%28government%29) (including the Army and Navy) of the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States). It proclaimed the freedom of slaves in the ten states that were still in rebellion,[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_Proclamation#cite_note-1) thus applying to 3.1 million of the 4 million slaves in the U.S. at the time. The Proclamation was based on the president's constitutional authority as commander in chief of the armed forces;[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_Proclamation#cite_note-2) it was not a law passed by Congress.


Second; a president can "proclaim" anything he wants but it has no effect in a foreign country...and the south had seceded and was a sovereign nation on its' own. They were not recognized anywhere as a foreign nation...

No foreign nation officially recognized the Confederacy as an independent country,[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America#cite_note-history-state-gov-1) but several had granted belligerent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belligerent) status.


lincoln had no authority in the south.Period...incorrect. The government formed in the south was not legal, and not recognized anywhere. Lincoln was still their President.

He issued his fake "proclamation" to inflame the slaves and destabilize the south and also to pretend to seize the moral "high ground" which would make the south look bad and (he hoped) isolate it from foreign aid. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.

lincoln couldn't have cared less about slavery except to use it as a lever to manipulate people. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.

Hey..if you're ever down this way let me know. I'd like to offer you the opportunity to have lunch with me sometime and you can call me any name you like then, son. Dumb ass.

comments in RED above.

[red state]

Many blacks refused to flee and actually fought within the Confederacy...DUMB@$$. No mention of that or other crucial aspects of what P.K. tried to explain. The result may be the same BUT the initial intent had nothing to do with slavery. History up and get out of the liberal run Wikithing.

Generally speaking as History records it:

1. Unfair Taxes on Southern States: 1850's 2. Raids on farms: 1860 3. War: was fought from 1861 to 1865 4. lincoln's EP: Jan 1, 1863 [too little too late]


So, THEY start it after having done the same thing YET phased out their slavery over time, treated the SOUTH like 2nd class citizens, move upon us, we retaliate, we ALL go for ALL OUT WAR and the emancipation proclamation (as a war measure) truly came into play somewhere in between and AFTER the war was underway.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Thanks for the kind words.
Whatever leftist/statists call me has no effect. They're doing the best they can with what they have...Bless their little hearts.

The truth is large and trumps govt. propaganda and that's all that matters.
Many in the south have never forgiven the govt for invading, wrecking and occupying our homeland. Things wouldn't be as they are now if we were our own nation.

Just as the patriots in 1776 fought tyranny and oppression, my ancestors were patriots for at least trying to secede peacefully. After the north invaded, they did what honorable people do when their homeland is attacked.

Oh well. Maybe next time. ;)

outright lie. Not surprising.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Sumter

The Battle of Fort Sumter (April 12–14, 1861) was the bombardment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardment) and surrender of Fort Sumter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Sumter), near Charleston, South Carolina (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charleston,_South_Carolina), that started the American Civil War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War). Following declarations of secession (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession) by seven Southern states (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America#Secession), South Carolina demanded that the U.S. Army abandon its facilities in Charleston Harbor. On December 26, 1860, U.S. Major Robert Anderson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Anderson_%28Civil_War%29) surreptitiously moved his small command from the indefensible Fort Moultrie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Moultrie) on Sullivan's Island (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sullivan%27s_Island,_South_Carolina) to Fort Sumter, a substantial fortress controlling the entrance of Charleston Harbor. An attempt by U.S. President James Buchanan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Buchanan) to reinforce and resupply Anderson, using the unarmed merchant ship Star of the West (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_of_the_West), failed when it was fired upon by shore batteries on January 9, 1861.
North did not 'invade', they were already there. The South fired the first shot.

Dumb ass.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Many blacks refused to flee and actually fought within the Confederacy...DUMB@$$. No mention of that or other crucial aspects of what P.K. tried to explain. The result may be the same BUT the initial intent had nothing to do with slavery. History up and get out of the liberal run Wikithing.

Generally speaking as History records it:

1. Unfair Taxes on Southern States: 1850's 2. Raids on farms: 1860 3. War: was fought from 1861 to 1865 4. lincoln's EP: Jan 1, 1863 [too little too late]


So, THEY start it after having done the same thing YET phased out their slavery over time, treated the SOUTH like 2nd class citizens, move upon us, we retaliate, we ALL go for ALL OUT WAR and the emancipation proclamation (as a war measure) truly came into play somewhere in between and AFTER the war was underway.

http://civilwargazette.wordpress.com/2008/03/13/did-blacks-fight-in-combat-for-the-confederacy/

One of the more interesting questions related to blacks serving in the American Civil War is this, did blacks (free or slave) serve in combat roles in the Confederate Army? Unquestionably the historical evidence is strong that some blacks – perhaps several thousand – did serve in the Confederate Army in unofficial, non-combat roles as servants, laborers, teamster, musician, cooks, etc. But the official record is very unsupportive that thousands of blacks served as official soldiers in the ranks of the Southern soldiers’ rosters.

In short, if one sticks solely to the historical record for primary evidence of the black soldier picking up arms and fighting for the South, one can only conclude that the support for such a claim is scanty at best – merely anecdoctal – and entirely unsubstantiated at worst. Instead of the widely claimed and purported number of 30,000 fighting black soldiers for the Confederacy, an honest look at the historical record leads one to the conclusion that as little as under a hundred to as many as several hundred blacks may have actually engaged in combat for the South during the Civil War by actually carrying and discharging a weapon.

It is widely accepted by historians that perhaps as many as 200,000 blacks served in the Union Army. That is a sizable number when one realizes that only 750,000 to 900,000 men even fought for the South during the entire Civil War. According to historian and Professor James I. Robertson, Jr., “Approximately 180,000 blacks served as Federal soldiers. This figure represents 9 percent of the North’s fighting force.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Marcus. Does it sound to you, like it sounds to me? As in. Does Arbo have a twin?????

no idea. Nothing really surprises me anymore.

[P.Kersey]

comments in RED above.

Right...the south seceded. When a group of people secede it doesn't matter if the former gov't "recognizes" them or not. The winners write the history and get to define the terms.
We didn't ask "permission" from the govt to secede and we didn't ask to be "recognized". We did it and we backed it up.
Jefferson Davis was the president of the C.S.A. just as G. Washington was president of the U.S. after the revolution.

lincoln had no authority in the south..just as king george had no authority in the colonies after the declaration of independence...or were they "dumb asses", too? LMAO

The rest of your gibberish is non responsive and not worthy of continuing since you can't debunk my facts.
"nuh uh" doesn't count as a rebuttal, son.
..LMAO..and any sentence that ends with "dumb ass" exposes a lot more about the writer than the recipient.

Any time you're down here, I'd really like to have lunch with you. Do let me know.

[red state]

Thanks for the kind words.
Whatever leftist/statists call me has no effect. They're doing the best they can with what they have...Bless their little hearts.

The truth is large and trumps govt. propaganda and that's all that matters.
Many in the south have never forgiven the govt for invading, wrecking and occupying our homeland. Things wouldn't be as they are now if we were our own nation.

Just as the patriots in 1776 fought tyranny and oppression, my ancestors were patriots for at least trying to secede peacefully. After the north invaded, they did what honorable people do when their homeland is attacked.

Oh well. Maybe next time. ;)


You are quite welcome PK. I'm glad the evils of slavery is no longer a shadow on our Nation BUT the truth of what happened is so simply discarded by the alternative which was the over reaching hand of an overwhelmingly led tyranny of one group of Americans over another. The bottom line (slavery excluded) was that the States had a RIGHT to succeed from the biased union they were "surviving" under. It was as if the union was King George and we were not a part of England but mere colonies to tax and set rule over. That is the bottom line. We still have that right (although lincoln severely weakened our claim to it).

If or WHEN it all happens again, it is gonna be a real mess cuz there are now "good ole boys" in EVERY State of the Union and we are all getting sick of THEM trampling on our Constitution. Slavery bad....I get it but the kind of tyranny we saw before and have seen after the war between the States and are living under now is also bad.....very bad.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Now that school is over, let's get back on topic...

Debbie Wasserman Shithead claims the only reason the Dems lost in Colorado is... yup... voter suppression!

Now THERE... is a dumb ass.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Right...the south seceded. When a group of people secede it doesn't matter if the former gov't "recognizes" them or not. The winners write the history and get to define the terms.
We didn't ask "permission" from the govt to secede and we didn't ask to be "recognized". We did it and we backed it up.
Jefferson Davis was the president of the C.S.A. just as G. Washington was president of the U.S. after the revolution.

lincoln had no authority in the south..just as king george had no authority in the colonies after the declaration of independence...or were they "dumb asses", too? LMAO

The rest of your gibberish is non responsive and not worthy of continuing since you can't debunk my facts.
"nuh uh" doesn't count as a rebuttal, son.
..LMAO..and any sentence that ends with "dumb ass" exposes a lot more about the writer than the recipient.

Any time you're down here, I'd really like to have lunch with you. Do let me know.

false equivalency.

Washington became President AFTER the war was won. He was elected by the people, not appointed by Congress.

Davis was appointed by the illegal confederate congress, before the war ended, and won an 'election' they set up in which he ran unopposed.

I debunked all your 'facts'. The FACT you can't handle someone schooling you is evident.

dumb ass.

[red state]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by aboutime http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=664314#post664314)
Marcus. Does it sound to you, like it sounds to me? As in. Does Arbo have a twin?????




A twin as in the conspirators claim that lincoln & Davis were twins or brothers? Yeah, seems left and RIGHT to me (IF) they are twins.

Look, I have said that ONE good did come out of the war between the STATES but to make lincoln or the biased union a hero is wrong. If that makes me an ARBO twin or something, so be it but to the victor goes the account of history YET there is so much about the so-called Civil War that is up for grabs but I do know that there was much that history has wrong. Sorry to be a wedge and go against those that I like but I see it as I see it and I saw nothing within PK's statements that appear to be ARBO-like.....quite the contrary, I'd say in comparing what PK said and the replies from those who apparently know it ALL without addressing the real reasons for States to have done what was CONSTITUTIONALLY there RIGHT after being treated differently than the northern states. Some of my family are from the Jackson Clan but I can't stand Andrew Jackson for what he did in stabbing those who had battled by his side in the back. There is all sorts of blind spots in history and all I or PK have done was to shed some light on those areas. I'm not saying anyone is wrong but I'll tell you right now that I sure as hell am not going to sit here and have someone tell me that I'm wrong. And, by the way, where is the great debater/agitator?

Again....SLAVERY (bad)......but biased treatment and one-sided taxation (ALSO BAD).

[Marcus Aurelius]

Now that school is over, let's get back on topic...

Debbie Wasserman Shithead claims the only reason the Dems lost in Colorado is... yup... voter suppression!

Now THERE... is a dumb ass.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/12/gop-calls-out-dems-over-accusation-voter-suppression-in-colorado-recall/


"This was voter suppression, pure and simple," Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, said in a statement.


Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler's office also questioned Schultz' argument.

"When you look at the results of this recall election, when more people showed up, Democrats got crushed," he told Politico. "So why she has any credibility whatsoever just blows me away when she says stuff that's just completely contradicted by facts on the ground."

[P.Kersey]

outright lie. Not surprising.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Sumter

North did not 'invade', they were already there. The South fired the first shot.

Dumb ass.

No, son...That's not how it happened.

Here's some real history for you, youngster.

The South seceded basically over Free Trade. The North couldn't compete with the cheaper and better European goods coming into Southern ports. So they imposed the Morrill tariffs in 1860.

The poor Whites of the South couldn't afford Northern goods or to pay the tariffs, so they ignored them.


The Federal government controlled by the North sent troops and tariff collectors to Southern ports. This was intolerable to the economic well being of the South, so they seceded from the Federal Union and ordered the evacuation of all Federal officers and troops from the Confederacy.

Lincoln ordered Fort Sumter not to comply and sent ships to resupply them. The South bombarded them into surrendering before supplies could arrive. No lives were lost.

The jewish bankers and manufacturers of the North went into a tizzy and ordered Lincoln to force the South back into the Union.
After 2 years of war, the South was winning, even though they were greatly outmanned.
Morale was low and desertions were high in the North. There were anti-draft riots. Nobody wanted to fight for the bankers.

That's when Lincoln changed his strategy and said the war was to free the poor oppressed slaves of the South and issued the Emancipation Proclamation. European support for the South wavered after that because they were anti-slavery. The South suddenly became the bad guys. Lincoln used his new, high moral ground as an excuse to commit immoral atrocities against Southern cities and citizens.


In Dec 1860 South Carolina seceded from the union.

April 15 1861 Lincoln issued an order for 75,000 volunteers to subdue the south..after originally saying that he endorsed secession regarding texas seceding from mexico...and of course lincoln thought the colonies seceding from England in 1776 was a great idea...

This is from an address he made in Congress..the liar..


Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable - a most sacred right - a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world.Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can may revolutionize and make their own of so many of the territory as they inhabit."

....but lincoln still needed a casus belli as an excuse to invade the south and wage war on his fellow americans.

Some in the north were not against the secession of the south.."Let our erring sisters depart in peace"
Fort sumter was where he provoked the attack that gave him the excuse he needed.

Fort sumter could not continue to exist in the harbor of Charleston..a foreign fort on southern soil. It had to be surrendered like the other federal forts on southern land or in southern waters ALREADY HAD. The south paid for them and the troops/personnel were evacuated peacefully. christ..even revisionist wiki admits that.


In exchange the south offered to pay not ONLY for the properties, but also to pay the south's portion of the federal debt of the United States.(!)
Lincoln didn't want to hear any of that. He wanted a war.

He refused to meet with southern representatives sent to discuss the crisis despite the intervention of 2 associate justices of The Supreme Court on the south's behalf.

He decided he would not let the south secede..despite the wording of the Declaration of Independence which the u.s. used to secede from britain, and which he naturally supported.

So now fort sumter which was built to protect americans from foreign attack was now to be used AGAINST americans exercising their legal rights to be free from federal authority.

Fort Pickens in Pensacola and Fort sumter were the only 2 forts in the confederacy that hadn't peacefully surrendered to the CSA.

Had fort sumter surrendered the war probably would have been avoided but lincoln knew that a federal fort in charleston harbor, the seat of secession, would be an intolerable provocation, irritant and threat.

Lincoln had vowed to collect "duties and imposts" or tariffs in the south.

Tariffs amounted to 95% of the federal revenue and the Morrill Tariff signed in 1861 by Pres. Buchanan had MORE THAN DOUBLED TARIFF DUTIES on the south.
The south opposed the tariff..the north, naturally supported it and now that south carolina had left the union lincoln decided to ENFORCE the tariff..a further provocation.

Ratcheting up the tension, on april 6 1861 lincoln announced he was sending men and supplies to fort sumter..which by now wasn't part of the united states any more, therefore an invasion. There were already federal ships in position near the harbor and they weren't there for a parade.

The south knew that if they wanted to take possession of the fort with no bloodshed, they couldn't wait until it was reinforced.

On 12 april 1861 Gen P.G.T. Beauregard opened gentlemanly negotiations with the fort commander, Maj. Robt. Anderson.
When negotiations broke down Beauregard ordered his artillerymen to fire on the fort for effect. 2 days later we took the fort..NO ONE WAS KILLED and the troops were evacuated peacefully.

The south won the stand off against a foreign occupied fort in its territory but now lincoln had the excuse he needed..To "put down the rebel insurrection"..which HE HAD PROVOKED.

In his inaugural address lincoln had said;

"We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature."

....but purposely seeking to wage war on his fellow americans isn't actually a reflection of "the better angels of our nature".

Lincoln thought the mexican-american war was wrong even though it gained the u.s. california, utah, nevada, arizona, parts of colorado wyoming and new mexico, but the lying scum bastard thought it was just fine to wage total war against his fellow americans who were exercising a legal right.

If the south seceded today, how many of you think it would be ok to send tanks across the potomac, blockade southern ports and carpet bomb american cities?
Killing civilians, destroying and burning their property, killing or stealing their livestock, wrecking their infrastructure and waging a war of scorched earth..against fellow americans?

I'm sure some of you keyboard jockeys and the more immature among you will claim it's just a fine idea...but seriously...What goes around most assuredly comes around..think of YOUR home and city destroyed, your possessions stolen and your friends and family dead...

Robert E. Lee, a great patriot and a West Point graduate was offered command of the Union Army and declined. A man who had honorably served the flag of the U.S. his entire adult life;

On April 20th, 1861 Lee wrote two very important letters.
One was addressed to the Secretary of War tendering his resignation from the United States Army; the other to his mentor, General Winfield Scott, explaining his decision.
Lee’s resignation had come after much deliberation.
Tensions between the north and south had been high for many months when in January, 1861 Lee wrote to his wife from Texas that “As far as I can judge from the papers we are between anarchy and Civil War. May God avert us from both.”

In a letter to his son Jan 23 1861 he wrote;

....I see that four states have declared themselves out of the Union; four more will apparently follow their example. Then, if the border states are brought into the gulf of revolution, one half of the country will be arrayed against the other. I must try and be patient and await the end, for I can do nothing to hasten or retard it.

The South, in my opinion, has been aggrieved by the acts of the North, as you say. I feel the aggression and am willing to take every proper step for redress . It is the principle I contend for, not individual or private benefit. As an American citizen, I take great pride in my country, her prosperity and institutions, and would defend any state if her rights were invaded. But I can anticipate no greater calamity for the country than a dissolution of the Union. It would be an accumulation of all the evils we complain of, and I am willing to sacrifice everything but honor for its preservation.

. . . Still, a Union that can only be maintained by swords and bayonets, and in which strife and civil war are to take the place of brotherly love and kindness, has no charm for me. I shall mourn for my country and for the welfare and progress of mankind. If the Union is dissolved, and the government disrupted, I shall return to my native state and share the miseries of my people; and, save in defense, will draw my sword on none.

[P.Kersey]

false equivalency.

Washington became President AFTER the war was won. He was elected by the people, not appointed by Congress.
irrelevant distraction. Purposely missing the point.


Davis was appointed by the illegal confederate congress, before the war ended, and won an 'election' they set up in which he ran unopposed.
there was nothing illegal about the CSA.


I debunked all your 'facts'. The FACT you can't handle someone schooling you is evident.

dumb ass.
You debunked absolutely nothing.
Lunch is on me any time you like. Really hope you can make it.
Let me know.

[Marcus Aurelius]

No, son...That's not how it happened.

Here's some real history for you, youngster.

The South seceded basically over Free Trade. The North couldn't compete with the cheaper and better European goods coming into Southern ports. So they imposed the Morrill tariffs in 1860.

The poor Whites of the South couldn't afford Northern goods or to pay the tariffs, so they ignored them.


The Federal government controlled by the North sent troops and tariff collectors to Southern ports. This was intolerable to the economic well being of the South, so they seceded from the Federal Union and ordered the evacuation of all Federal officers and troops from the Confederacy.

Lincoln ordered Fort Sumter not to comply and sent ships to resupply them. The South bombarded them into surrendering before supplies could arrive. No lives were lost.

The jewish bankers and manufacturers of the North went into a tizzy and ordered Lincoln to force the South back into the Union.
After 2 years of war, the South was winning, even though they were greatly outmanned.
Morale was low and desertions were high in the North. There were anti-draft riots. Nobody wanted to fight for the bankers.

That's when Lincoln changed his strategy and said the war was to free the poor oppressed slaves of the South and issued the Emancipation Proclamation. European support for the South wavered after that because they were anti-slavery. The South suddenly became the bad guys. Lincoln used his new, high moral ground as an excuse to commit immoral atrocities against Southern cities and citizens.


In Dec 1860 South Carolina seceded from the union.

April 15 1861 Lincoln issued an order for 75,000 volunteers to subdue the south..after originally saying that he endorsed secession regarding texas seceding from mexico...and of course lincoln thought the colonies seceding from England in 1776 was a great idea...

This is from an address he made in Congress..the liar..


Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable - a most sacred right - a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world.Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can may revolutionize and make their own of so many of the territory as they inhabit."

....but lincoln still needed a casus belli as an excuse to invade the south and wage war on his fellow americans.

Some in the north were not against the secession of the south.."Let our erring sisters depart in peace"
Fort sumter was where he provoked the attack that gave him the excuse he needed.

Fort sumter could not continue to exist in the harbor of Charleston..a foreign fort on southern soil. It had to be surrendered like the other federal forts on southern land or in southern waters ALREADY HAD. The south paid for them and the troops/personnel were evacuated peacefully. christ..even revisionist wiki admits that.


In exchange the south offered to pay not ONLY for the properties, but also to pay the south's portion of the federal debt of the United States.(!)
Lincoln didn't want to hear any of that. He wanted a war.

He refused to meet with southern representatives sent to discuss the crisis despite the intervention of 2 associate justices of The Supreme Court on the south's behalf.

He decided he would not let the south secede..despite the wording of the Declaration of Independence which the u.s. used to secede from britain, and which he naturally supported.

So now fort sumter which was built to protect americans from foreign attack was now to be used AGAINST americans exercising their legal rights to be free from federal authority.

Fort Pickens in Pensacola and Fort sumter were the only 2 forts in the confederacy that hadn't peacefully surrendered to the CSA.

Had fort sumter surrendered the war probably would have been avoided but lincoln knew that a federal fort in charleston harbor, the seat of secession, would be an intolerable provocation, irritant and threat.

Lincoln had vowed to collect "duties and imposts" or tariffs in the south.

Tariffs amounted to 95% of the federal revenue and the Morrill Tariff signed in 1861 by Pres. Buchanan had MORE THAN DOUBLED TARIFF DUTIES on the south.
The south opposed the tariff..the north, naturally supported it and now that south carolina had left the union lincoln decided to ENFORCE the tariff..a further provocation.

Ratcheting up the tension, on april 6 1861 lincoln announced he was sending men and supplies to fort sumter..which by now wasn't part of the united states any more, therefore an invasion. There were already federal ships in position near the harbor and they weren't there for a parade.

The south knew that if they wanted to take possession of the fort with no bloodshed, they couldn't wait until it was reinforced.

On 12 april 1861 Gen P.G.T. Beauregard opened gentlemanly negotiations with the fort commander, Maj. Robt. Anderson.
When negotiations broke down Beauregard ordered his artillerymen to fire on the fort for effect. 2 days later we took the fort..NO ONE WAS KILLED and the troops were evacuated peacefully.

The south won the stand off against a foreign occupied fort in its territory but now lincoln had the excuse he needed..To "put down the rebel insurrection"..which HE HAD PROVOKED.

In his inaugural address lincoln had said;

"We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature."

....but purposely seeking to wage war on his fellow americans isn't actually a reflection of "the better angels of our nature".

Lincoln thought the mexican-american war was wrong even though it gained the u.s. california, utah, nevada, arizona, parts of colorado wyoming and new mexico, but the lying scum bastard thought it was just fine to wage total war against his fellow americans who were exercising a legal right.

If the south seceded today, how many of you think it would be ok to send tanks across the potomac, blockade southern ports and carpet bomb american cities?
Killing civilians, destroying and burning their property, killing or stealing their livestock, wrecking their infrastructure and waging a war of scorched earth..against fellow americans?

I'm sure some of you keyboard jockeys and the more immature among you will claim it's just a fine idea...but seriously...What goes around most assuredly comes around..think of YOUR home and city destroyed, your possessions stolen and your friends and family dead...

Robert E. Lee, a great patriot and a West Point graduate was offered command of the Union Army and declined. A man who had honorably served the flag of the U.S. his entire adult life;

On April 20th, 1861 Lee wrote two very important letters.
One was addressed to the Secretary of War tendering his resignation from the United States Army; the other to his mentor, General Winfield Scott, explaining his decision.
Lee’s resignation had come after much deliberation.
Tensions between the north and south had been high for many months when in January, 1861 Lee wrote to his wife from Texas that “As far as I can judge from the papers we are between anarchy and Civil War. May God avert us from both.”

In a letter to his son Jan 23 1861 he wrote;

....I see that four states have declared themselves out of the Union; four more will apparently follow their example. Then, if the border states are brought into the gulf of revolution, one half of the country will be arrayed against the other. I must try and be patient and await the end, for I can do nothing to hasten or retard it.

The South, in my opinion, has been aggrieved by the acts of the North, as you say. I feel the aggression and am willing to take every proper step for redress . It is the principle I contend for, not individual or private benefit. As an American citizen, I take great pride in my country, her prosperity and institutions, and would defend any state if her rights were invaded. But I can anticipate no greater calamity for the country than a dissolution of the Union. It would be an accumulation of all the evils we complain of, and I am willing to sacrifice everything but honor for its preservation.

. . . Still, a Union that can only be maintained by swords and bayonets, and in which strife and civil war are to take the place of brotherly love and kindness, has no charm for me. I shall mourn for my country and for the welfare and progress of mankind. If the Union is dissolved, and the government disrupted, I shall return to my native state and share the miseries of my people; and, save in defense, will draw my sword on none.

Board rules require a link, and that you not copy the entire piece. This helps prevents the possibility of a copyright lawsuit against the site.

[P.Kersey]

Here..in their own words...are articles, publications and letters describing what was happening at the time...no wiki revisionist history here. Real facts.
lincoln invaded south carolina and purposely provoked an armed resistance. The south wanted to and tried to PEACEFULLY secede...but lincoln wouldn't have that...


"But what am I to do in the meantime with those men at Montgomery [meaning the Confederate constitutional convention]? Am I to let them go on... [a]nd open Charleston, etc., as ports of entry, with their ten-percent tariff. What, then, would become of my tariff?" ~ Lincoln to Colonel John B. Baldwin, deputized by the Virginian Commissioners to determine whether Lincoln would use force, April 4, 1861.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this as of many other evils....The quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel".... Charles Dickens in a London periodical in December 1861

"The contest is really for empire on the side of the North and for independence on that of the South....". ..... London Times of 7 Nov 1861

"Slavery is not the cause of the rebellion ....Slavery is the pretext on which the leaders of the rebellion rely, 'to fire the Southern Heart' and through which the greatest degree of unanimity can be produced....Mr. Calhoun, after finding that the South could not be brought into sufficient unanimity by a clamor about the tariff, selected slavery as the better subject for agitation"..... North American Review (Boston October 1862)

"They [the South] know that it is their import trade that draws from the people's pockets sixty or seventy millions of dollars per annum, in the shape of duties, to be expended mainly in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interests....These are the reasons why these people [the North] do not wish the South to secede from the Union." ..... New Orleans Daily Crescent 21 January 1861

"In one single blow our foreign commerce must be reduced to less than one-half what it now is. Our coastwise trade would pass into other hands. One-half of our shipping would lie idle at our wharves. We should lose our trade with the South, with all of its immense profits. Our manufactories would be in utter ruins. Let the South adopt the free-trade system, or that of a tariff for revenue, and these results would likely follow." .... Chicago Daily Times December 1860

"At once shut down every Southern port, destroy its commerce and bring utter ruin on the Confederate States." ..... NY Times 22 March 1861

"the mask has been thrown off and it is apparent that the people of the principal seceding states are now for commercial independence. They dream that the centres of traffic can be changed from Northern to Southern ports....by a revenue system verging on free trade...." .... Boston Transcript 18 March 1861

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail ; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result. "

Abraham Lincoln, in a letter to Gustavus Fox, May 1, 1861

"The affair at Fort Sumter, it seems to us, has been planned as a means by which the war feeling at the North should be intensified, and the administration thus receive popular support for its policy.... If the armament which lay outside the harbor, while the fort was being battered to pieces [the US ship The Harriet Lane, and seven other reinforcement ships], had been designed for the relief of Major Anderson, it certainly would have made a show of fulfilling its mission. But it seems plain to us that no such design was had. The administration, virtually, to use a homely illustration, stood at Sumter like a boy with a chip on his shoulder, daring his antagonist to knock it off. The Carolinians have knocked off the chip. War is inaugurated, and the design of the administration accomplished." ~ The Buffalo Daily Courier, April 16, 1861.

"We have no doubt, and all the circumstances prove, that it was a cunningly devised scheme, contrived with all due attention to scenic display and intended to arouse, and, if possible, exasperate the northern people against the South.... We venture to say a more gigantic conspiracy against the principles of human liberty and freedom has never been concocted. Who but a fiend could have thought of sacrificing the gallant Major Anderson and his little band in order to carry out a political game? Yet there he was compelled to stand for thirty-six hours amid a torrent of fire and shell, while the fleet sent to assist him, coolly looked at his flag of distress and moved not to his assistance! Why did they not? Perhaps the archives in Washington will yet tell the tale of this strange proceeding.... Pause then, and consider before you endorse these mad men who are now, under pretense of preserving the Union, doing the very thing that must forever divide it." ~ The New York Evening Day-Book, April 17, 1861.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Here..in their own words...are articles, publications and letters describing what was happening at the time...no wiki revisionist history here. Real facts.
lincoln invaded south carolina and purposely provoked an armed resistance. The south wanted to and tried to PEACEFULLY secede...but lincoln wouldn't have that...


"But what am I to do in the meantime with those men at Montgomery [meaning the Confederate constitutional convention]? Am I to let them go on... [a]nd open Charleston, etc., as ports of entry, with their ten-percent tariff. What, then, would become of my tariff?" ~ Lincoln to Colonel John B. Baldwin, deputized by the Virginian Commissioners to determine whether Lincoln would use force, April 4, 1861.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this as of many other evils....The quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel".... Charles Dickens in a London periodical in December 1861

"The contest is really for empire on the side of the North and for independence on that of the South....". ..... London Times of 7 Nov 1861

"Slavery is not the cause of the rebellion ....Slavery is the pretext on which the leaders of the rebellion rely, 'to fire the Southern Heart' and through which the greatest degree of unanimity can be produced....Mr. Calhoun, after finding that the South could not be brought into sufficient unanimity by a clamor about the tariff, selected slavery as the better subject for agitation"..... North American Review (Boston October 1862)

"They [the South] know that it is their import trade that draws from the people's pockets sixty or seventy millions of dollars per annum, in the shape of duties, to be expended mainly in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interests....These are the reasons why these people [the North] do not wish the South to secede from the Union." ..... New Orleans Daily Crescent 21 January 1861

"In one single blow our foreign commerce must be reduced to less than one-half what it now is. Our coastwise trade would pass into other hands. One-half of our shipping would lie idle at our wharves. We should lose our trade with the South, with all of its immense profits. Our manufactories would be in utter ruins. Let the South adopt the free-trade system, or that of a tariff for revenue, and these results would likely follow." .... Chicago Daily Times December 1860

"At once shut down every Southern port, destroy its commerce and bring utter ruin on the Confederate States." ..... NY Times 22 March 1861

"the mask has been thrown off and it is apparent that the people of the principal seceding states are now for commercial independence. They dream that the centres of traffic can be changed from Northern to Southern ports....by a revenue system verging on free trade...." .... Boston Transcript 18 March 1861

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail ; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result. "

Abraham Lincoln, in a letter to Gustavus Fox, May 1, 1861

"The affair at Fort Sumter, it seems to us, has been planned as a means by which the war feeling at the North should be intensified, and the administration thus receive popular support for its policy.... If the armament which lay outside the harbor, while the fort was being battered to pieces [the US ship The Harriet Lane, and seven other reinforcement ships], had been designed for the relief of Major Anderson, it certainly would have made a show of fulfilling its mission. But it seems plain to us that no such design was had. The administration, virtually, to use a homely illustration, stood at Sumter like a boy with a chip on his shoulder, daring his antagonist to knock it off. The Carolinians have knocked off the chip. War is inaugurated, and the design of the administration accomplished." ~ The Buffalo Daily Courier, April 16, 1861.

"We have no doubt, and all the circumstances prove, that it was a cunningly devised scheme, contrived with all due attention to scenic display and intended to arouse, and, if possible, exasperate the northern people against the South.... We venture to say a more gigantic conspiracy against the principles of human liberty and freedom has never been concocted. Who but a fiend could have thought of sacrificing the gallant Major Anderson and his little band in order to carry out a political game? Yet there he was compelled to stand for thirty-six hours amid a torrent of fire and shell, while the fleet sent to assist him, coolly looked at his flag of distress and moved not to his assistance! Why did they not? Perhaps the archives in Washington will yet tell the tale of this strange proceeding.... Pause then, and consider before you endorse these mad men who are now, under pretense of preserving the Union, doing the very thing that must forever divide it." ~ The New York Evening Day-Book, April 17, 1861.

Links are required.

[P.Kersey]

You are quite welcome PK. I'm glad the evils of slavery is no longer a shadow on our Nation BUT the truth of what happened is so simply discarded by the alternative which was the over reaching hand of an overwhelmingly led tyranny of one group of Americans over another. The bottom line (slavery excluded) was that the States had a RIGHT to succeed from the biased union they were "surviving" under. It was as if the union was King George and we were not a part of England but mere colonies to tax and set rule over. That is the bottom line. We still have that right (although lincoln severely weakened our claim to it).

If or WHEN it all happens again, it is gonna be a real mess cuz there are now "good ole boys" in EVERY State of the Union and we are all getting sick of THEM trampling on our Constitution. Slavery bad....I get it but the kind of tyranny we saw before and have seen after the war between the States and are living under now is also bad.....very bad.

I agree completely. Importing negroes and holding them as slaves is the WORST thing this country ever did and the results of it prove that every day.

The 3% of rich southerners who owned slaves should have picked their own cotton...Imagine how different things would be today.

[Marcus Aurelius]

So much for staying on topic and following board rules I guess.

[P.Kersey]

Links are required.

The publications are listed, the dates are there and the writers are named.
In the case of letters, they're dated, the writer and the recipient are both named.

son...I don't care if you believe or don't believe. You aren't here for a mature discussion about facts, anyway.
You exposed yourself and abandoned any credibility you might have had as soon as you started name calling.

You know how to do a search? Go for it.

*pro tip* avoid wiki if possible. Some things are too large for even them to hide/revise, but overall they aren't reliable and everyone knows it.

[Marcus Aurelius]

I agree completely. Importing negroes and holding them as slaves is the WORST thing this country ever did and the results of it prove that every day.

The 3% of rich southerners who owned slaves should have picked their own cotton...Imagine how different things would be today.

You really need to stop pulling numbers out of your ass, dumb ass.

http://users.humboldt.edu/ogayle/hist110/unit4/SectionalIssues.html




Percentage of Southerners who owned slaves in 1860:

25% were slaves owners and of that 25% -

52% owned 1-5 slaves;
35% owned 6-9 slaves;
11% owned 20-99 slaves; and
1% owned 100 or more slaves




By 1860, the very small percentage of white slaveholders who had plantations of 800 or more acres and owned at least 50 slaves controlled the social, political, and economic power of the South.
These men also had a huge hold over the remainder of the white population. How then, were they able to convince the vast majority of white southerners that they should fight for a system - slavery and the power of slaveholding aristocrats - in which they had no stake? White supremacy! No matter how poor southern whites were, as long as there was slavery, they were also supreme over the slaves.

[P.Kersey]

So much for staying on topic and following board rules I guess.

Translation;

"I have no valid reply now that I've been proven wrong in public and embarrassed myself, so I'll abandon all my positions and pretend to be interested in following rules now."

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=664340#post664340)
Links are required.



The publications are listed, the dates are there and the writers are named.
In the case of letters, they're dated, the writer and the recipient are both named.

son...I don't care if you believe or don't believe. You aren't here for a mature discussion about facts, anyway.
You exposed yourself and abandoned any credibility you might have had as soon as you started name calling.

You know how to do a search? Go for it.

*pro tip* avoid wiki if possible. Some things are too large for even them to hide/revise, but overall they aren't reliable and everyone knows it.

doesn't matter. You obviously did not write that all from memory... you copied it from an online source... WITHOUT linking to said source. That is a violation of board rules, and could get the owner sued.

It is not MY responsibility to look for links for YOUR sources. It's YOUR responsibility.

[aboutime]

Translation;

"I have no valid reply now that I've been proven wrong in public and embarrassed myself, so I'll abandon all my positions and pretend to be interested in following rules now."



Marcus. I'm no longer sure we shouldn't be thanking Arbo, or any number of other former members here for repeating...almost verbatim....the same words, expressions, and techniques we've seen so many times before.

Notice what I'm talking about?

[P.Kersey]

You really need to stop pulling numbers out of your ass, dumb ass.

http://users.humboldt.edu/ogayle/hist110/unit4/SectionalIssues.html

Absolute leftist BS...Just reading about "white supremacists" exposes THAT "research" as fraudulent and biased.

According to the 1860 census;
http://www.civil-war.net/pages/1860_census.html


8% of southerners owned slaves.That's it, ace...25%? LMAO...rubbish....Yes my number was off by few percent...the revisionist nonsense you posted is just ridiculous, though.

28% of free negroes in the south owned slaves..got any comments on THAT? I didn't think so....

[Marcus Aurelius]

Marcus. I'm no longer sure we shouldn't be thanking Arbo, or any number of other former members here for repeating...almost verbatim....the same words, expressions, and techniques we've seen so many times before.

Notice what I'm talking about?

well, I'm done with him for now anyway. All he wants to do is fight because I called him out on his alleged 'facts'. Unlinked quotes do not counter linked, established, credible sources of information like the University I linked to above. Anyway, he's not worth the spit to shine my shoes. And as Jim would prefer this not go on up here, I'm done with him for now.

[Marcus Aurelius]

well, just this last smack down...


Absolute leftist BS...Just reading about "white supremacists" exposes THAT "research" as fraudulent and biased.

According to the 1860 census;
http://www.civil-war.net/pages/1860_census.html


8% of southerners owned slaves.That's it, ace...25%? LMAO...rubbish....Yes my number was off by few percent...the revisionist nonsense you posted is just ridiculous, though.

28% of free negroes in the south owned slaves..got any comments on THAT? I didn't think so....

You said...

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by P.Kersey http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=664342#post664342)

I agree completely. Importing negroes and holding them as slaves is the WORST thing this country ever did and the results of it prove that every day.

The 3% of rich southerners who owned slaves should have picked their own cotton...Imagine how different things would be today.





You lied. I'm done with you.

[P.Kersey]

doesn't matter. You obviously did not write that all from memory... you copied it from an online source... WITHOUT linking to said source. That is a violation of board rules, and could get the owner sued.

It is not MY responsibility to look for links for YOUR sources. It's YOUR responsibility.

Of course I didn't do it from memory. I never claimed to.

Now you're trying to evade and deflect. The writers, dates, and publications are listed. LMAO..running scared now...talking about violating rules and lawsuits..LMAO...ANYTHING to avoid the topic at this point.

EDIT:

OH NO!!!..you gave me negative reps!..Oh my god..the *HORROR*. Now THIS is a blow I may have trouble recovering from. You kids are funny...Really.

[aboutime]

Of course I didn't do it from memory. I never claimed to.

Now you're trying to evade and deflect. The writers, dates, and publications are listed. LMAO..running scared now...talking about violating rules and lawsuits..LMAO...ANYTHING to avoid the topic at this point.

Thanks for clearing that up for us Arbo.

[P.Kersey]

well, just this last smack down...



You said...


You lied. I'm done with you.

HAHAHAHahahahaha...I said 3% instead of 8%..LMAO. So you disregard every historical fact I just posted because you know you don't have a leg to stand on.You haven't debunked one single thing except dodging and changing the subject as fast as you can every time you get cornered...

LMAO...you said 25% owned slaves...THAT is incorrect...and I proved it...

Run away and declare "victory" if it makes you feel good. No one is fooled.
This thread was read by intelligent people and I made my points with proven facts...without name calling and dodging and evading and deflecting....

[P.Kersey]

Thanks for clearing that up for us Arbo.

That's a meaningless remark.
Does that make you feel "clever" or "witty" or "intelligent"? Does it lower your feelings of insecurity or need for attention? :laugh:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

.
Yes. He was about waging total, unconditional scorched earth warfare on civilians, women and children who merely wanted to peacefully leave the union.He allowed his generals to commit war crimes in the name of the "saving the union"
He wanted the war and he started the war to be able to continue to collect unfair taxes and tariffs from the south...The south refused to continue to support a gov't that didn't represent them....the same reason the patriots fought england for independence Some of this can be debated but overall its spot on IMHO. I do not fault Lincoln for trying to save the Union after all he was the President. I do fault both he and Sherman for the inhumane savagery they inflicted upon helpless women and children during Sherman's famous march to the sea. In my opinion both are undoubtedly hellbound for that bit of genocidal savagery. So when Lincolnbots go to bragging on him I often tell such people you should educate yourself a lot more on the Civil War. --Tyr

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by P.Kersey http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=664361#post664361)

Absolute leftist BS...Just reading about "white supremacists" exposes THAT "research" as fraudulent and biased.

According to the 1860 census;
http://www.civil-war.net/pages/1860_census.html


8% of southerners owned slaves.That's it, ace...25%? LMAO...rubbish....Yes my number was off by few percent...the revisionist nonsense you posted is just ridiculous, though.

28% of free negroes in the south owned slaves..got any comments on THAT? I didn't think so....



actually, I'm not done with you. You didn't read your source properly, dumb ass.

1860 census results... the 8% was the TOTAL of ALL FAMILIES IN THE ENTIRE COUNTRY AT THAT TIME who owned slaves.

Here's a breakdown from YOUR SOURCE, on just the southern states, of families that owned slaves... the column YOU chose.

South Carolina 46%
Mississippi 49%
Florida 34%
Alabama 35%
Georgia 37%
Louisiana 29%
Texas 28%
Virginia 26%
Arkansas 20%
Tennessee 25%
North Carolina 28%

If you're going to link to a source, you should probably understand what you copy and paste, dumb ass.

[red state]

I agree completely. Importing negroes and holding them as slaves is the WORST thing this country ever did and the results of it prove that every day.

The 3% of rich southerners who owned slaves should have picked their own cotton...Imagine how different things would be today.


Yes, it was very bad times but the poor Southerner (including Cherokee and mountain settlers) had other bones to pick with the 'beloved' union (and still do). I am proud of my Jackson side but that Jack@$$ who shamed the Jackson Clan through treachery is in the same boat as lincoln in my opinion. At least he was not a lawyer and actually fought for some good before turning SOB.

You are correct that this Nation would have been a MUCH better place it the wealthy Southerner AND Jefferson and Washington had picked their own cotton, tobacco and 'cherries'. AS HISTORY RECORDS, WE WERE ACTUALLY GOING TO SEND THE VERY FEW SLAVES WE HAD AT THE TIME BUT COULDN'T AFFORD IT AS I UNDERSTAND. WHO CAN PLACE SUCH A COST IN COMPARISON TO WHEN WE HAD MANY SLAVES TO SEND BACK AND HAVE LOST SO MUCH BECAUSE OF WHAT WE THOUGHT WAS COSTLY THEN. The cost would have been nothing in comparison to the state of affairs we are now in when considering the cost of incarceration alone. Still, there were more than a few blacks and poor whites who dreamed of one day having a large plantation with their own slaves (other than becoming slaves themselves in 'sharecropping' surroundings AFTER the so-called civil war). Even if they had one day become slave owners themselves....technology was soon on the way to replace the slaves BEFORE the war between the States and the slaves/sharecroppers AFTER the war. I suppose we shouldn't have retaliated at Fort Sumter after many of our farms had been burned to the ground by those from the North. Still, and whether the federal invaders had a part in it or not at that time....they certainly and cheerfully took part in it once the war was underway. I got that info from some movies so I hope this site isn't sued because I forget which ones. HA! Just kidding....the films I've seen on the subject fall right in with what I already knew. I just wish someone would make a film that documents the tyranny and barbarism from the north that lead to the true cause or the South's forming their own Nation. Again, history is recorded by the victor (which seems to be that wiki-thingy that some choose to source. HA!!! Most of all my info comes from sourced info but it is info that I've locked away and in memory so I guess I never have to link or source what I've learned. I'm just glad that I've studied both sides and weighed the truth out of it (WITHOUT HAVING TO COPY & PASTE links/authors). When I do go the copy/paste route, I'll try to remember to give everyone a link so that this fantastic site isn't sued after some gov. official or author has scanned this forum hoping that one day they are able to sue all of our @$$E$ (mainly Jim). When/IF that happens, I'll be the first to donate to the DP Legal Fund/Foundation. HA!!!!

OK....enough of all this. I'd hate to see a 'civil' war here at DP over things that really don't matter to the thread so I'll ad one more thing before I close up office and head out to my daughter's ball game: Colorado has proven that good can come from bad (just as the war between the States had an second hand thought of good that came out of it). I always thought that we'd lose the gun battle with the same lot that forced themselves upon the South with a biased taxation code but it appears that in this case, FOR NOW, that the gun guys have the upper hand. Let us hope that such States (blue and RED) continue to show some ounce of common sense (even though we have a bunch of DUMB@$$E$ in OUR White House and the rest of DC.

See you guys later...

[Gaffer]

When the proclamation was issued it was not just to free the blacks. Lincoln planned on doing that in a slower process so as not to cost the southern states to badly. But in 1863 Britain was looking at recognizing the southern states as a separate nation. But hey couldn't do so since they had abolished slavery. When Lincoln freed the slaves he basically said the south was still part of the whole country and slavery was abolished. The British could not then recognize the south nor send troops to aid them as the slavery issue kept them from doing so. The proclamation was used to keep outside influences at bay.

The war started because the democrats couldn't get their way in Washington and took their ball and went home. The first shots were fired by the Confederacy.

[P.Kersey]

actually, I'm not done with you. You didn't read your source properly, dumb ass.

1860 census results... the 8% was the TOTAL of ALL FAMILIES IN THE ENTIRE COUNTRY AT THAT TIME who owned slaves.

Here's a breakdown from YOUR SOURCE, on just the southern states, of families that owned slaves... the column YOU chose.

South Carolina 46%
Mississippi 49%
Florida 34%
Alabama 35%
Georgia 37%
Louisiana 29%
Texas 28%
Virginia 26%
Arkansas 20%
Tennessee 25%
North Carolina 28%

If you're going to link to a source, you should probably understand what you copy and paste, dumb ass.

How many of those were black slave owners and how many were white?..Never mind, son...you are far too uncouth and immature to have a reasonable conversation with.

Please let me know if you'll ever be down this way. Really. Lunch is on me and it would be my distinct pleasure to hear you describe how much of a "dumb ass" I am in person, son.

[red state]

Some of this can be debated but overall its spot on IMHO. I do not fault Lincoln for trying to save the Union after all he was the President. I do fault both he and Sherman for the inhumane savagery they inflicted upon helpless women and children during Sherman's famous march to the sea. In my opinion both are undoubtedly hellbound for that bit of genocidal savagery. So when Lincolnbots go to bragging on him I often tell such people you should educate yourself a lot more on the Civil War. --Tyr

Well, to argo's disgust or whomever he is or whomever About Time thinks he is, I would have provided a hundred thanks/likes for that fantastic bit of writing. It is all SPOT ON as usual and I will make this my last post on this thread....gotta run anyway and I don't wish to come back from the ball game and see that Tyr or I were accused of being someone's twin. It is our opinion AFTER we've studied intensely the subject matter and have sat at the feet of those who also sat at the feet of the ones who lived through those black, awful days of gloom. The facts are there....but I wouldn't rely on that Wiki-thing. HA!!!! They are about as biased as the north was when taxing the South BEFORE the South succeeded.

Thanks again, Tyr, I was wondering if you'd ever come on board.....it is bad when brother fights brother but a man must do what he knows is right. Slavery was wrong when the North did it and it was wrong when the South took part in slavery but three wrongs don't make a right.

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=664376#post664376)
actually, I'm not done with you. You didn't read your source properly, dumb ass.

1860 census results... the 8% was the TOTAL of ALL FAMILIES IN THE ENTIRE COUNTRY AT THAT TIME who owned slaves.

Here's a breakdown from YOUR SOURCE, on just the southern states, of families that owned slaves... the column YOU chose.

South Carolina 46%
Mississippi 49%
Florida 34%
Alabama 35%
Georgia 37%
Louisiana 29%
Texas 28%
Virginia 26%
Arkansas 20%
Tennessee 25%
North Carolina 28%

If you're going to link to a source, you should probably understand what you copy and paste, dumb ass.



How many of those were black slave owners and how many were white?..Never mind, son...you are far too uncouth and immature to have a reasonable conversation with.

Please let me know if you'll ever be down this way. Really. Lunch is on me and it would be my distinct pleasure to hear you describe how much of a "dumb ass" I am in person, son.

Wow... called you out on your screw up of your own source, and instantly you move the goal posts... Suddenly now you were talking about white slave owners vs. black slave owners? The 8% you cited, from YOUR SOURCE, does not differentiate... why should you suddenly do so?

Face it, you fucked up. Man up, admit it, and move on, dumb ass.

BTW, you can make all the veiled threats you like. Everyone's a tough guy on the internet:laugh2:

[P.Kersey]

When the proclamation was issued it was not just to free the blacks. Lincoln planned on doing that in a slower process so as not to cost the southern states to badly. But in 1863 Britain was looking at recognizing the southern states as a separate nation. But hey couldn't do so since they had abolished slavery. When Lincoln freed the slaves he basically said the south was still part of the whole country and slavery was abolished. The British could not then recognize the south nor send troops to aid them as the slavery issue kept them from doing so. The proclamation was used to keep outside influences at bay.

The war started because the democrats couldn't get their way in Washington and took their ball and went home. The first shots were fired by the Confederacy.

Hi.
lincoln had no authority to free anyone in the south as the south was no longer part of the union and lincoln wasn't the president of the CSA.

The first shots were fired at fort sumter in retaliation for invading southern land and refusing to depart. The south offered to pay for the buildings and evacuate the troops safely and peacefully...like they did in every other union fort except fort pickens and fort sumter.

"You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail ; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result. "

Abraham Lincoln, in a letter to Gustavus Fox, May 1, 1861

"The affair at Fort Sumter, it seems to us, has been planned as a means by which the war feeling at the North should be intensified, and the administration thus receive popular support for its policy.... If the armament which lay outside the harbor, while the fort was being battered to pieces [the US ship The Harriet Lane, and seven other reinforcement ships], had been designed for the relief of Major Anderson, it certainly would have made a show of fulfilling its mission. But it seems plain to us that no such design was had. The administration, virtually, to use a homely illustration, stood at Sumter like a boy with a chip on his shoulder, daring his antagonist to knock it off. The Carolinians have knocked off the chip. War is inaugurated, and the design of the administration accomplished." ~ The Buffalo Daily Courier, April 16, 1861.

"We have no doubt, and all the circumstances prove, that it was a cunningly devised scheme, contrived with all due attention to scenic display and intended to arouse, and, if possible, exasperate the northern people against the South.... We venture to say a more gigantic conspiracy against the principles of human liberty and freedom has never been concocted. Who but a fiend could have thought of sacrificing the gallant Major Anderson and his little band in order to carry out a political game? Yet there he was compelled to stand for thirty-six hours amid a torrent of fire and shell, while the fleet sent to assist him, coolly looked at his flag of distress and moved not to his assistance! Why did they not? Perhaps the archives in Washington will yet tell the tale of this strange proceeding.... Pause then, and consider before you endorse these mad men who are now, under pretense of preserving the Union, doing the very thing that must forever divide it." ~ The New York Evening Day-Book, April 17, 1861.

lincoln knowingly provoked the situation so he could have his war.

[P.Kersey]

dumb ass.

BTW, you can make all the veiled threats you like. Everyone's a tough guy on the internet:laugh2:

I'm not making any threats, son. I'm inviting you to have lunch so you can call me names in person...instead of in hiding.
You'd surely do that, wouldn't you? Let me know. Lunch is on me. Any time.

[red state]

OK, game is at 6:30 and without me having to write a lengthy, drawn out and extremely boring post that is foriegn to some of our members who favor one liners, I thought that I'd simply post a link with a caption or two about the link's content. I was forwarded this by a friend in Texas and I actually found much of it interesting....although I knew most of this for the most part already. Still, there is much that I had forgotten or overlooked so I hope others enjoy reading it as much as I did. And if your still reading this Mr. Reed, Thanks again for forwarding this to me.

http://www.sclos.org/Papers/What%20Your%20Teacher-%20Civil%20War.pdf

Why are the American colonists who wished to disunite themselves from England
considered “Patriots”, but the Confederates who wished to disunite from Washington considered “Rebels”?
Why are most of the battlefields located in the South? Why do they call it a “civil war”?
It is likely that your teacher views the Northern victory as a good thing. It has been said that the winning
side of every war gets to write the history books. So, if your teacher is relatively neutral, you can consider
yourself fortunate. Most schools focus primarily on only one....



http://www.sclos.org/Papers/What%20Your%20Teacher-%20Civil%20War.pdf

Not sure if I am supposed to post the link before or after but to make certain that Jim's site isn't sued, I'm posting it before and after the snip. Much of it is almost like reading today's paper when comparing our current regime with the one back then...

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Now that school is over, let's get back on topic...

Debbie Wasserman Shithead claims the only reason the Dems lost in Colorado is... yup... voter suppression!

Now THERE... is a dumb ass. If that "thing" had a brain it would rattle .... my grandmother would say that about really stupid people. I am sure that she would shout it about Debbie whatshername Craphead. :laugh:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Well, to argo's disgust or whomever he is or whomever About Time thinks he is, I would have provided a hundred thanks/likes for that fantastic bit of writing. It is all SPOT ON as usual and I will make this my last post on this thread....gotta run anyway and I don't wish to come back from the ball game and see that Tyr or I were accused of being someone's twin. It is our opinion AFTER we've studied intensely the subject matter and have sat at the feet of those who also sat at the feet of the ones who lived through those black, awful days of gloom. The facts are there....but I wouldn't rely on that Wiki-thing. HA!!!! They are about as biased as the north was when taxing the South BEFORE the South succeeded.

Thanks again, Tyr, I was wondering if you'd ever come on board.....it is bad when brother fights brother but a man must do what he knows is right. Slavery was wrong when the North did it and it was wrong when the South took part in slavery but three wrongs don't make a right.

Slavery always was wrong regardless of who did it. Certainly not worth fighting about now! I chimed in to say a lot of propaganda still being put out about that --"the most terrible war we ever fought"- and a diligent search for more truth about it will open eyes of those seeking truth over convenience and bias. The South seceded by ENGAGING IN its opening salvo against Fort Sumter in Charleston harbor.. There is no formal method to secede. The colonies sought redress from King George but the actual break away from England came with the first volleys emptied into the Redcoat soldiers representing a tyrant King! With having stated this I can and do admit the reunification of North and South was the best thing and so necessary for future world conflicts to end successfully and with more freedom for more people. Had the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NOT BEEN A UNITED FORCE history and the world would be ever so greatly different and not in any good way IMHO. As usual , talk about guns and wars will eventually be discussed. We should remember we are a United Representative Republic. And as a Republic we have a Constitution to guide us! That is what we must now defend--OUR CONSTITUTION!--TYR

[P.Kersey]

The South seceded by ENGAGING IN its opening salvo against Fort Sumter in Charleston harbor..
South Carolina and all the southern states seceded before the shots were fired.
The north provoked that on purpose by sending troops to reinforce a fort that didn't belong to them any longer.


There is no formal method to secede. The colonies sought redress from King George but the actual break away from England came with the first volleys emptied into the Redcoat soldiers representing a tyrant King!
The Declaration of Independence was the formal method the colonies used.


With having stated this I can and do admit the reunification of North and South was the best thing and so necessary for future world conflicts to end successfully and with more freedom for more people. Had the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NOT BEEN A UNITED FORCE history and the world would be ever so greatly different and not in any good way IMHO. As usual , talk about guns and wars will eventually be discussed. We should remember we are a United Representative Republic. And as a Republic we have a Constitution to guide us! That is what we must now defend--OUR CONSTITUTION!--TYR

I disagree with all that. Had the south been allowed to peacefully secede we would still have been allies and trade partners, shared a common culture, language and history etc...etc..Why not?. It worked with england?
It's all speculation anyway.
The north committed horrible atrocities to force peaceful people at gunpoint and under threat of death to remain under their control while they wrecked the infrastructure, burned homes and factories murdered civilians..and they are PROUD of it.
Who wouldn't resent that?
Shermans march to the sea is looked on by northerners/uninformed as some kind of heroic fight against evil.

Actually it was terrorism and murder...The same things we are so against...when it's convenient.

[aboutime]

If that "thing" had a brain it would rattle .... my grandmother would say that about really stupid people. I am sure that she would shout it about Debbie whatshername Craphead. :laugh:



Speaking of which.....5535

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

South Carolina and all the southern states seceded before the shots were fired.
The north provoked that on purpose by sending troops to reinforce a fort that didn't belong to them any longer.


The Declaration of Independence was the formal method the colonies used.



I disagree with all that. Had the south been allowed to peacefully secede we would still have been allies and trade partners, shared a common culture, language and history etc...etc..Why not?. It worked with england?
It's all speculation anyway.
The north committed horrible atrocities to force peaceful people at gunpoint and under threat of death to remain under their control while they wrecked the infrastructure, burned homes and factories murdered civilians..and they are PROUD of it.
Who wouldn't resent that?
Shermans march to the sea is looked on by northerners/uninformed as some kind of heroic fight against evil.

Actually it was terrorism and murder...The same things we are so against...when it's convenient. You say you disagree with --all- OF THAT. SO YOU DISAGREE WITH THIS!!


And as a Republic we have a Constitution to guide us! That is what we must now defend--OUR CONSTITUTION!--TYR If so we have nothing further to discuss on this subject. I simply will not waste my time that way. --Tyr

[Gaffer]

Lincoln's proclamation covered the whole US. It basically declared the southern states were still part of the union. That was what kept the British from getting involved on the side of the Confederacy. Aiding the Confederacy would have been seen as an act of war. Thus the British backed off. The French on the other hand invaded Mexico while the US was busy.

The revolutionary soldiers are now known as patriots, but back then the British referred to them as rebels.

PK you sounds like a hateful old rebel still fighting the war. And you seem to have a very narrow view of history.

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by P.Kersey http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=664382#post664382)


http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=664376#post664376)
actually, I'm not done with you. You didn't read your source properly, dumb ass.

1860 census results... the 8% was the TOTAL of ALL FAMILIES IN THE ENTIRE COUNTRY AT THAT TIME who owned slaves.

Here's a breakdown from YOUR SOURCE, on just the southern states, of families that owned slaves... the column YOU chose.

South Carolina 46%
Mississippi 49%
Florida 34%
Alabama 35%
Georgia 37%
Louisiana 29%
Texas 28%
Virginia 26%
Arkansas 20%
Tennessee 25%
North Carolina 28%

If you're going to link to a source, you should probably understand what you copy and paste, dumb ass.



How many of those were black slave owners and how many were white?..Never mind, son...you are far too uncouth and immature to have a reasonable conversation with.

Please let me know if you'll ever be down this way. Really. Lunch is on me and it would be my distinct pleasure to hear you describe how much of a "dumb ass" I am in person, son.





Wow... called you out on your screw up of your own source, and instantly you move the goal posts... Suddenly now you were talking about white slave owners vs. black slave owners? The 8% you cited, from YOUR SOURCE, does not differentiate... why should you suddenly do so?

Face it, you fucked up. Man up, admit it, and move on, dumb ass.

BTW, you can make all the veiled threats you like. Everyone's a tough guy on the internet:laugh2:
Didn't think you'd admit to screwing up and changing your story.

[logroller]

Hi.
lincoln had no authority to free anyone in the south as the south was no longer part of the union and lincoln wasn't the president of the CSA.

"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or exercise their revolutionary right to overthrow it." Abraham Lincoln


Their secession wasn't 'legal'. Believe what you wish but when it comes right down to it, here are two means to leave the union, with consent of congress or by revolution-- the south failed at both. So that's that. Legally speaking, scotus has ruled such. (White v Texas?)

The law of man only carries as much weight as there is a rod to enforce it-- that rod is wielded by the president, who's answerable to congress, with the Courts to keep them all in check. Thats how its done legally, not through unilateral secession.

It's common sense really, say for example I came to your house and said, move and I'll give you fair market value for your land, or stay and I'll shoot you-- would you say its 'legally' OK to shoot you because you didn't move?



The first shots were fired at fort sumter in retaliation for invading southern land and refusing to depart. The south offered to pay for the buildings and evacuate the troops safely and peacefully...like they did in every other union fort except fort pickens and fort sumter.
The union was there first, you seem to be ignoring that little tidbit....See my above question on my taking of your house.



"You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail ; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result. "

Abraham Lincoln, in a letter to Gustavus Fox, May 1, 1861

The "cause of the country"???? Like, preserving the nation...yep, pretty much. A house divided....



"The affair at Fort Sumter, it seems to us, has been planned as a means by which the war feeling at the North should be intensified, and the administration thus receive popular support for its policy.... If the armament which lay outside the harbor, while the fort was being battered to pieces [the US ship The Harriet Lane, and seven other reinforcement ships], had been designed for the relief of Major Anderson, it certainly would have made a show of fulfilling its mission. But it seems plain to us that no such design was had. The administration, virtually, to use a homely illustration, stood at Sumter like a boy with a chip on his shoulder, daring his antagonist to knock it off. The Carolinians have knocked off the chip. War is inaugurated, and the design of the administration accomplished." ~ The Buffalo Daily Courier, April 16, 1861.
As opposed to what, running away? Sorry pal, these colors don't run. Not then, not now. :salute:



"We have no doubt, and all the circumstances prove, that it was a cunningly devised scheme, contrived with all due attention to scenic display and intended to arouse, and, if possible, exasperate the northern people against the South.... We venture to say a more gigantic conspiracy against the principles of human liberty and freedom has never been concocted. Who but a fiend could have thought of sacrificing the gallant Major Anderson and his little band in order to carry out a political game? Yet there he was compelled to stand for thirty-six hours amid a torrent of fire and shell, while the fleet sent to assist him, coolly looked at his flag of distress and moved not to his assistance! Why did they not? Perhaps the archives in Washington will yet tell the tale of this strange proceeding.... Pause then, and consider before you endorse these mad men who are now, under pretense of preserving the Union, doing the very thing that must forever divide it." ~ The New York Evening Day-Book, April 17, 1861.

lincoln knowingly provoked the situation so he could have his war.
And the south thought what, that Lincoln would just take them off the Christmas card list for seceding?

If the minority will not acquiesce, the majority must, or the Government must cease. There is no other alternative, for continuing the Government is acquiescence on one side or the other. If a minority in such a case will secede rather than acquiesce, they make a precedent which in turn will divide and ruin them, for a minority of their own will secede from them whenever a majority refuses to be controlled by such a minority. For instance, why may not any portion of a new confederacy a year or two hence arbitrarily secede again, precisely as portions of the present Union now claim to secede from it?... Plainly the central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN, First Inaugural Address, Mar. 4, 1861


The south caused the war because they couldn't get their way due to their lesser population, thus lesser representation--- they were a minority, and bitterly so. (perhaps over the 3/5 thing) With the whigs and southern democrats divided over slavery, they just couldn't get those radical republicans to kowtow to the southern wishes of expanding slavery to the rapidly expanding states in the western territories, so they rioted in the fiery fear of union beliefs being spread. (See: bleeding kansas)

Once lincoln was elected, the south knew the republicans had the upper hand and abolition would be forced upon them at some point. Even before lincoln was sworn in, the south had already conspired to secede. So don't play this off as it being Lincoln's fault they unilaterally seceded and took federal land by force in deference to the laws of this country and its aspirations of a more perfect union. They attacked a union position without provocation, so unless standing your ground is "provocative", and even then, only to a bully, its just not the story you wish it to be. It was nothing more than a rebellion and, despite your belief to the contrary, the confederacy alone instigated the hostilities and the union was legally justified in taking whatever steps necessary to suppress it.

With that said, at times, i wonder if we wouldnt have been better off had the south won, but they didn't and those who fired on fort sumter provided a greater impetus for usurping state rights than any other event in our history. Epic fail rebel boy.

[P.Kersey]

Ok..no big surprise the northerners would gloat and disregard inconvenient facts when it suited their purpose...If it were their homeland that was wrecked and then occupied by fellow americans I suppose they'd feel differently.

..and hey, look how well the country is doing today. You guys must be very proud. Nice going!

So yeah, guys, whatever you say. :rolleyes: I'm a "hateful old rebel" and a "rebel boy"...and that other kid...your friend ....whatsisname... who likes to call people "dumb ass"... too funny.

You guys like to call people names when you get frustrated, I've noticed. Very revealing.

[Arbo]

Implying something?



Who said that?
First of all lincoln didn't free any slaves, the war wasn't about slavery and I (also understand) that to "some" everything they've been fed in public school is all they know.



Yes. He was about waging total, unconditional scorched earth warfare on civilians, women and children who merely wanted to peacefully leave the union.He allowed his generals to commit war crimes in the name of the "saving the union"
He wanted the war and he started the war to be able to continue to collect unfair taxes and tariffs from the south...The south refused to continue to support a gov't that didn't represent them....the same reason the patriots fought england for independence.

An interesting view. And some interesting spin on history.

[Arbo]

Now that school is over, let's get back on topic...

Debbie Wasserman Shithead claims the only reason the Dems lost in Colorado is... yup... voter suppression!

Now THERE... is a dumb ass.

And the woman that was removed from office was on TV saying the same thing. "I lost because of voter suppression". Proving she is so dumb that she deserved to be removed from office no matter what.

[Gaffer]

Ok..no big surprise the northerners would gloat and disregard inconvenient facts when it suited their purpose...If it were their homeland that was wrecked and then occupied by fellow americans I suppose they'd feel differently.

..and hey, look how well the country is doing today. You guys must be very proud. Nice going!

So yeah, guys, whatever you say. :rolleyes: I'm a "hateful old rebel" and a "rebel boy"...and that other kid...your friend ....whatsisname... who likes to call people "dumb ass"... too funny.

You guys like to call people names when you get frustrated, I've noticed. Very revealing.

No ones gloating over anything. The Civil War or the War Between the States if you prefer was well over a 100 years ago. There are no inconvenient facts to disregard. It was our homeland that was devastated. As this is all one country.

It seems to me you don't understand much about military tactics and how logistics works or you would understand why Sherman's march was made to begin with. In conjunction with Sheridan's ride through the Shenandoah Valley.

You take away the enemies means to feed himself and you reduce his ability to fight.

I said your a hateful rebel, if you don't like that too bad, but it seems to be a true statement. You fit the old song "I'm a Good Ole Rebel" If you can find it and listen to it you will find that you embody the song very well.

Today the country sucks but is you look closely at the members of the armed forces you'll find an over abundance of southern boys who are there to fight for their country. Not the south, their country.

[Arbo]

That's a meaningless remark.
Does that make you feel "clever" or "witty" or "intelligent"? Does it lower your feelings of insecurity or need for attention? :laugh:

It makes he look like a fool. He is merely suggesting (yet again incorrectly) he knows the 'real identity' of a poster. That he thinks you and I who 100% disagree on your thoughts on Lincoln, really is quite stunning (not in a good way), and speaks to an altered state of reality some seem to live in.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or exercise their revolutionary right to overthrow it." Abraham Lincoln


Their secession wasn't 'legal'. Believe what you wish but when it comes right down to it, here are two means to leave the union, with consent of congress or by revolution-- the south failed at both. So that's that. Legally speaking, scotus has ruled such. (White v Texas?)

The law of man only carries as much weight as there is a rod to enforce it-- that rod is wielded by the president, who's answerable to congress, with the Courts to keep them all in check. Thats how its done legally, not through unilateral secession.

It's common sense really, say for example I came to your house and said, move and I'll give you fair market value for your land, or stay and I'll shoot you-- would you say its 'legally' OK to shoot you because you didn't move?



The union was there first, you seem to be ignoring that little tidbit....See my above question on my taking of your house.



The "cause of the country"???? Like, preserving the nation...yep, pretty much. A house divided....


As opposed to what, running away? Sorry pal, these colors don't run. Not then, not now. :salute:


And the south thought what, that Lincoln would just take them off the Christmas card list for seceding?

If the minority will not acquiesce, the majority must, or the Government must cease. There is no other alternative, for continuing the Government is acquiescence on one side or the other. If a minority in such a case will secede rather than acquiesce, they make a precedent which in turn will divide and ruin them, for a minority of their own will secede from them whenever a majority refuses to be controlled by such a minority. For instance, why may not any portion of a new confederacy a year or two hence arbitrarily secede again, precisely as portions of the present Union now claim to secede from it?... Plainly the central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN, First Inaugural Address, Mar. 4, 1861


The south caused the war because they couldn't get their way due to their lesser population, thus lesser representation--- they were a minority, and bitterly so. (perhaps over the 3/5 thing) With the whigs and southern democrats divided over slavery, they just couldn't get those radical republicans to kowtow to the southern wishes of expanding slavery to the rapidly expanding states in the western territories, so they rioted in the fiery fear of union beliefs being spread. (See: bleeding kansas)

Once lincoln was elected, the south knew the republicans had the upper hand and abolition would be forced upon them at some point. Even before lincoln was sworn in, the south had already conspired to secede. So don't play this off as it being Lincoln's fault they unilaterally seceded and took federal land by force in deference to the laws of this country and its aspirations of a more perfect union. They attacked a union position without provocation, so unless standing your ground is "provocative", and even then, only to a bully, its just not the story you wish it to be. It was nothing more than a rebellion and, despite your belief to the contrary, the confederacy alone instigated the hostilities and the union was legally justified in taking whatever steps necessary to suppress it.

With that said, at times, i wonder if we wouldnt have been better off had the south won, but they didn't and those who fired on fort sumter provided a greater impetus for usurping state rights than any other event in our history. Epic fail rebel boy. I do not agree 100% with that post but nevertheless one helluva post Log. :beer: Certainly deserved a direct reply from P. Kersey. Seems that now there are two members that are good at dodging hard to answer posts gracing us with their magnificent thoughts. :thinking5:---Tyr

[P.Kersey]

It makes he look like a fool. He is merely suggesting (yet again incorrectly) he knows the 'real identity' of a poster. That he thinks you and I who 100% disagree on your thoughts on Lincoln, really is quite stunning (not in a good way), and speaks to an altered state of reality some seem to live in.

Immaturity, petulance and unresolved anger issues appear to own the day here..throw in some typical backhanded insults and insolence for good measure.

I'm willing to listen and discuss things with anyone but the level of snarkyness and the low "signal to noise ratio" here indicates that there are many who are insecure and more interested in looking "cool" to each other than acknowledging an opposing point of view.
It seems like every post has to include the standard, lame insults so they can all cheer for each other and feel validated.

Oh well..it's the internet.

[P.Kersey]

[QUOTE]] I do not agree 100% with that post but nevertheless one helluva post Log. :beer: Certainly deserved a direct reply from P. Kersey. Seems that now there are two members that are good at dodging hard to answer posts gracing us with their magnificent thoughts. :thinking5:---Tyr

blah...blah....I posted my position already and explained why and gave examples based on historical documents and the words of the people involved at the time.
Purposely distorting an issue and inventing hypothetical strawman arguments (like your friend just did) to distract and appear "clever" doesn't merit a serious response...but you go ahead and cheer for your friends.

[P.Kersey]

It seems to me you don't understand much about military tactics and how logistics works or you would understand why Sherman's march was made to begin with. In conjunction with Sheridan's ride through the Shenandoah Valley.

Sure thing..You're an expert on military tactics, I'm sure.
The point is that what lincoln allowed and what sherman and sheridan did are called war crimes today. ..and to do that to fellow americans who only wanted to peacefully secede.




I said your a hateful rebel, if you don't like that too bad, but it seems to be a true statement. You fit the old song "I'm a Good Ole Rebel" If you can find it and listen to it you will find that you embody the song very well.

Yeah..too bad.. :rolleyes:. I don't much care about some silly song.I'm sure it's very important to you but it doesn't interest me.


Today the country sucks but is you look closely at the members of the armed forces you'll find an over abundance of southern boys who are there to fight for their country. Not the south, their country.



So? They are fighting for a country "that sucks"..to use your own description. How noble is that?
They're being played and tricked into wasting their lives by flag wavers...How many were killed in iraq? 5000? How many tens of thousands were been crippled/maimed?.How many have been killed/maimed in afghanistan?....For what, again? To protect our country? You've been very well indoctrinated, I have to admit. rah..rah..go 'murica!

You statists are amusing. Fall in line..don't ask questions..disregard facts...The government always knows what's best..LMAO..whatever, ace...
The constitution has been discarded in favor of special interest groups and intl banks and intl corporations who pull the strings. Go ahead and listen to the star spangled banner and wave your little flag and pretend that everything is ok...
This country is finished anyway. A new one will be constructed with what's salvageable eventually.
That's how history and the real world works.
See ya in the field, general. :salute:

[Marcus Aurelius]

Immaturity, petulance and unresolved anger issues appear to own the day here..throw in some typical backhanded insults and insolence for good measure.

I'm willing to listen and discuss things with anyone but the level of snarkyness and the low "signal to noise ratio" here indicates that there are many who are insecure and more interested in looking "cool" to each other than acknowledging an opposing point of view.
It seems like every post has to include the standard, lame insults so they can all cheer for each other and feel validated.

Oh well..it's the internet.

You're not offering an 'opposing point of view'. You're offering your own facts, which are contradicted by actual fact. You even refuse to admit you misread your own source on the 8% slave ownership thing, and instead moved the goal posts.

How can anyone have a rational conversation with you, when you make shit up, claim sources say something they don't, and change your position on your own sources? Answer is, they can't. For anyone to have a rational conversation with you, YOU have to be rational. Simple logic, dumb ass.

[red state]

Proof that two wrongs do NOT make a right....although a positive result and mutual respect/understanding came from it:

http://shine.yahoo.com/parenting/dad-wears-short-shorts-to-teach-daughter-a-lesson--becomes-online-celeb-171218029.html

Hope this helps everyone let the storm pass and start over but if not....hopefully it'll at least leave a chuckle or two out there.

~RED

[Arbo]

Immaturity, petulance and unresolved anger issues appear to own the day here..throw in some typical backhanded insults and insolence for good measure.

I'm willing to listen and discuss things with anyone but the level of snarkyness and the low "signal to noise ratio" here indicates that there are many who are insecure and more interested in looking "cool" to each other than acknowledging an opposing point of view.
It seems like every post has to include the standard, lame insults so they can all cheer for each other and feel validated.

Oh well..it's the internet.

I think logroller hit all the points in his post to refute some the claims you put forth, no need to repeat them.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Proof that two wrongs do NOT make a right....although a positive result and mutual respect/understanding came from it:

http://shine.yahoo.com/parenting/dad-wears-short-shorts-to-teach-daughter-a-lesson--becomes-online-celeb-171218029.html

Hope this helps everyone let the storm pass and start over but if not....hopefully it'll at least leave a chuckle or two out there.

~RED Back when my daughter was 15 she wanted and insisted on buying this extremely skimpy bikini at a store in the mall. She was using her own money she had made by babysitting so the money part could not be debated. She was determined that bikini was the one. After a heated 10 minute discussion I said ok but know this, if you buy that bikini to wear in public I am going to walk you into school this August wearing my swim trucks. Her first response was , you wouldn't dare, to which I said, you 're on! She knows I never back down from a dare. By this time we were almost to the sales counter. She stopped and said, THERE WAS THAT OTHER RED ONE, I AM GOING BACK TO LOOK AT IT AGAIN. I smiled , remembering how embarrassed she was a couple years before on a hot Saturday afternoon when I came to swim in the pool wearing my really old , way too small swim trunks. She later told how embarrassed she was because three of her friends saw me like that! Hey, got to use any weapon you can when teenagers go all determined like that. She bought the red bikini that wasn't like a Band-Aid.. Later she thanked me and stated how everybody just loves her new red bikini.. I gave her a hug and a smile and told her how smart she was at picking out her clothing.:laugh2: Now you may ask would I have really worn those old "way to tight" swim trunks first day of school and walked her in too? My answer is this, it was a dare wasn't it? ;)--Tyr

[Jeff]

I know it was said in jest. But...think of the possibilities?

"Hey man. Ferget dat votin' stuff. Take another hit, and mellow-out!"

Sounds like a plan to me :rock::smoke::rock:

[logroller]

blah...blah....I posted my position already and explained why and gave examples based on historical documents and the words of the people involved at the time.
Purposely distorting an issue and inventing hypothetical strawman arguments (like your friend just did) to distract and appear "clever" doesn't merit a serious response...but you go ahead and cheer for your friends.
"strawman" says the guy arguing Abe the aggressor in a thread on a 2013 referendum of a state official. :spittake: Fucking Classic!!! More like a hangman, and I wasn't even trying to be so "clever" as to get you make such a hypocrite of yourself...I'm just lucky I guess-- Having nothing to do with a devastating rebuttal rife with logical analysis, sound argument and irrefutable facts-- Just luck.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

"strawman" says the guy arguing Abe the aggressor in a thread on a 2013 referendum of a state official. :spittake: Fucking Classic!!! More like a hangman, and I wasn't even trying to be so "clever" as to get you make such a hypocrite of yourself...I'm just lucky I guess-- Having nothing to do with a devastating rebuttal rife with logical analysis, sound argument and irrefutable facts-- Just luck. Just may be why he is such a hypocrite as you point out Log. A little possible insight into our new member Paul Kersey... seems a strange name to take that of a vigilante out for revenge...hmmm.. but he is no former member ..;)-Tyr



Death Wish (film series) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_Wish_(film_series)‎

Paul Kersey is an architect and "bleeding-heart liberal" who served in the Korean War in the medical corps, and he lives in New York City. One day, three street ...
‎Death Wish 3 - ‎Death Wish II - ‎Death Wish 4: The Crackdown

[logroller]

Just may be why he is such a hypocrite as you point out Log. A little possible insight into our new member Paul Kersey... seems a strange name to take that of a vigilante out for revenge...hmmm.. but he is no former member ..;)-Tyr
I don't care if he's posting as Monica lewinsky; each post gets its own weighting and is judged accordingly. As to why: In this case, I think he felt a renewed sense of defeat, so he responded with emotion, rather than logic.

He'd do well to consider what Jefferson Davis said a year before his death, beseeching the young men of Mississippi to “lay aside all rancor, all bitter sectional feeling, and to make your places in the ranks of those who will bring about a consummation devoutly to be wished—a reunited country.”

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I don't care if he's posting as Monica lewinsky; each post gets its own weighting and is judged accordingly. As to why: In this case, I think he felt a renewed sense of defeat, so he responded with emotion, rather than logic.

He'd do well to consider what Jefferson Davis said a year before his death, beseeching the young men of Mississippi to “lay aside all rancor, all bitter sectional feeling, and to make your places in the ranks of those who will bring about a consummation devoutly to be wished—a reunited country.”

http://spofga.org/flag/2007/nov/jefferson_davis.php The Death of Jefferson Davis

By: Calvin E. Johnson, Jr.
1064 West Mill Drive
Kennesaw, Georgia 30152
Phone: 770 428 0978

The Christmas Season of 1889, was a time of sadness in Dixie. Hundreds of thousands of people came to remember and pay their last respects to Jefferson Davis in the crescent city of New Orleans.

On December 6, 1889, Jefferson Davis died at the home of a friend. Do our young people who who Davis was?

Jefferson Davis graduated from West Point Military Academy, served valiantly in the War with Mexico, was Secretary of War under President Franklin Pierce, elected US Senator from Mississippi and was the first and only President of the Confederate States of America. Davis also wrote the book, "Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government" at his last home in Mississippi.

Jefferson Davis, and wife Varina, found great contentment and peace at "Beauvoir" their beautiful Mississippi Gulf Coast Home. This is where he wished to die when his time came but it was not to be.

In November 1889, Varina attended to their home as Davis left for Brierfield Plantation to take care of family business. As he traveled through New Orleans Davis was exposed to a cold-rain that caused him a severe cold and bronchitis that was further complicated by Malaria.

Milo Copper, a former servant of the Davis family, upon hearing of Davis' illness, made the long trip from Florida to New Orleans to be near Davis' side. As Cooper entered Davis' sick room, he burst into tears and fell on his knees and prayed that God would spare the life of Jefferson Davis and bless the family.

Jefferson Davis died between 12:30AM and 1:00AM on December 6, 1889. The news of his death hit the front page of many Southern newspapers. The praises and tributes read similar to that of a New Orleans paper that read,


"Throughout the South are Lamentations and tears; in every country on the globe where there are lovers of liberty there is mourning; wherever there are men who love heroic patriotism, dauntless resolution, fortitude or intellectual power, there is an sincere sorrowing. The beloved of our land, the unfaltering upholder of constitutional liberty, the typical hero and sage, is no more; the fearless heart that beats with sympathy for all mankind is stilled forever, a great light is gone----Jefferson Davis is dead!"

The body of Jefferson Davis laid in state at the city hall of New Orleans, Louisiana from midnight, December 6, 1889, to December 11th. The United States and Confederate flags hung from above and in the city hall that was covered with many flowers.

The church bells toiled as over 80,000 people lined the streets of New Orleans to pay their respects to a Southern legend. All schools and businesses were closed that day.

Those men who comprised the honor Guard for the procession to Metairie Cemetery included: the Army of Northern Virginia Association, the Army of Tennessee and the Washington Artillery. Metairie Cemetery would be a temporary burial place for Davis as he was moved in 1893, by funeral train to Hollywood Cemetery in Richmond, Virginia.

The sad part of this story is that the United States War Department did not recognize Davis and the US flag was not flown at half-mast. The US flag was flown at half mast in the South. Jefferson Davis was the only former Secretary of War that was not given the respect and honor by the United States Government.

Teach your children the true story of their American Heritage!

Source of information: The 1990, first quarter edition of the Southern Partisan Magazine. The magazine article, by freelance writer Mrs. Peggy Robbins, was entitled, "Jefferson Davis' Death."

[logroller]

^ that one partn is not that sad. For one thing, hiw many US secretaries of war waged war against the united states? plus, he served just two years in prison for his role in the war and was never pardoned. As far as I know, he never requested such. Thats why he never held another official seat in the US government. It would seem to me that he didn't want a US military funeral, but rather one led, as it was, by his fellow statesmen. He was a great man, but he was a criminal. I wouldn't go so far as to call him traitor, but one wouldn't be off base if they did.
and the flag was flown at half staff in the south for Davis...was it for Lincoln? Just saying.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

^ that one partn is not that sad. For one thing, hiw many US secretaries of war waged war against the united states? plus, he served just two years in prison for his role in the war and was never pardoned. As far as I know, he never requested such. Thats why he never held another official seat in the US government. It would seem to me that he didn't want a US military funeral, but rather one led, as it was, by his fellow statesmen. He was a great man, but he was a criminal. I wouldn't go so far as to call him traitor, but one wouldn't be off base if they did.
and the flag was flown at half staff in the south for Davis...was it for Lincoln? Just saying. Lincoln died April14th 1865 just five days after the Civil War ended on April 9th 1865. There was no Southern government to fly the flag at half mast. Southern states at that point were conquered territory and not concerned with such as that as they were devastated and under martial law.--Tyr

[logroller]

Lincoln died April14th 1865 just five days after the Civil War ended on April 9th 1865. There was no Southern government to fly the flag at half mast. Southern states at that point were conquered territory and not concerned with such as that as they were devastated and under martial law.--Tyr
So that's a no then. Come on tyr, Lets not play coy -- notwithstanding being devastated and war torn, the south rejoiced Lincoln's assassination. Davis was a proud man and honorable man. He was also a criminal for having waged war against his countryman. He never asked to be pardoned because he didn't feel as though he had done wrong. I fail to see why the nation should pay homage to such a person.

[red states rule]

the south rejoiced Lincoln's assassination.

LR that has to be the biggest bunch of crap you ever posted. I have read many books on the assassination and watched many documentaries - and most of the South was outraged over what JWB did.

They saw him as a coward since he shot an unarmed man from behind. Many Generals, and soldiers who hated Lincoln during the war - were incensed over the shooting. When JWB first read newspaper accounts of the murder, he was shocked to see the nation's reaction. So he started to keep a diary - filled with lies and over the top mellow dramatics - giving his account of the murder

When JWB crossed the Potomac River he received damn near zero help from known Southern sympathizers since the war was over when he shot the President. Now if JWB would have shot Lincoln during the war - perhaps things would have been different.

Were there a few idiots who thought JWB a hero - sure., The same way there would be some idiots who would be smiling if the same thing happened to Obama. (God forbid)

But overall your comment is more of your political ideology speaking rather then stating historical fact

As far as the thread topic, Dems should learn a valuable lesson 0 but they will not. Do not mess with the Second Amendment or face the political ramifications. It is comical watching the libs try and dismiss this recall election

Even the CNN anchor was not buying the BS being tossed out by the loser


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duK9fDVBq9I

[red states rule]

It is fun to watch libs react when voters reject them at the polls. Here we have Debbie Wasserman Bimbo spinning the losses in CO

Enjoy the comedy folks





You might have thought that the success of the recall election (http://hotair.com/archives/2013/09/11/total-recall-gun-control-advocates-get-booted-from-co-office/) effort in Colorado last night, in which two Democratic state legislators who voted in favor of new gun-control measures earlier this year were booted from office, was a sign that Coloradans aren’t big fans of infringements upon their Second-Amendment rights and will take action when they feel those rights are threatened — but you’d be wrong, and Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz is here to set you straight. Her statement via the Democratic National Committee (http://www.democrats.org/news/press/dnc_chair_debbie_wasserman_schultzs_statement_on_c olorado_recall_election_r):

“The recall elections in Colorado were defined by the vast array of obstacles that special interests threw in the way of voters for the purpose of reversing the will of the legislature and the people. This was voter suppression, pure and simple.

“Colorado voters are used to casting their ballots by mail, but because of lawsuits filed by opponents of common sense gun reform, voters were not mailed their ballots in this election. Those who intended to vote in person did not learn their polling locations until less than two weeks before Election Day. Tuesday’s low turnout was a result of efforts by the NRA, the Koch brothers and other right wing groups who know that when more people vote, Democrats win.

“But any electoral victory that hinges on impeding access to democracy is a hollow one, and ultimately, the NRA did not get what it wanted. The recall results will do nothing to change the Democratic control of the Colorado House, Senate and Governor’s office. And the commonsense gun laws that were passed by popular vote in Colorado will remain intact, including provisions like universal background checks and restrictions on the size of ammunition magazines. This will make residents safer from acts of violence.
…That sounds a lot more like pulling vague and desperate excuses out of thin air than it does actual evidence of voter suppression. It couldn’t be that even rural and Western Democrats might think certain gun-control measures are a bridge too far, could it, Debbie?
And anyhow, the way she tells it, you’d think that the gun-control crowd had been unfairly undercut and underrepresented somehow, which actually wasn’t the case at all (http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/colo-senate-president-in-trouble-in-early-results-of-recall-election-over-gun-control/2013/09/10/f88ab660-1a84-11e3-80ac-96205cacb45a_story.html). In fact, the anti-recall contributions dwarfed the pro-recall side:

Reported contributions to Morse and Giron totaled about $3 million, dwarfing the amount raised by gun activists who petitioned for the recall, though some independent groups didn’t have to report spending. Both the NRA and Bloomberg contributed more than $300,000 to the pro- and anti-recall campaigns.
And sure, I suppose the recall election might not have any immediate practical implications in terms of the legislature changing hands nor reversing the new gun laws in question, but it is a far cry from a hollow victory, and DWS knows it. Downplay it all you want, but it’s really a pretty powerful message from the voters of Colorado about just how much and which kinds of liberal controls they’re willing to let slide before they kick up some dust. I wouldn’t count on Colorado legislators at neither the state nor national level advocating for more gun-control measures anytime soon, would you?

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/09/11/dws-colorado-recall-was-a-clear-cut-instance-of-voter-suppression-pure-and-simple/

[aboutime]

LR that has to be the biggest bunch of crap you ever posted. I have read many books on the assassination and watched many documentaries - and most of the South was outraged over what JWB did.

They saw him as a coward since he shot an unarmed man from behind. Many Generals, and soldiers who hated Lincoln during the war - were incensed over the shooting. When JWB first read newspaper accounts of the murder, he was shocked to see the nation's reaction. So he started to keep a diary - filled with lies and over the top mellow dramatics - giving his account of the murder

When JWB crossed the Potomac River he received damn near zero help from known Southern sympathizers since the war was over when he shot the President. Now if JWB would have shot Lincoln during the war - perhaps things would have been different.

Were there a few idiots who thought JWB a hero - sure., The same way there would be some idiots who would be smiling if the same thing happened to Obama. (God forbid)

But overall your comment is more of your political ideology speaking rather then stating historical fact

As far as the thread topic, Dems should learn a valuable lesson 0 but they will not. Do not mess with the Second Amendment or face the political ramifications. It is comical watching the libs try and dismiss this recall election

Even the CNN anchor was not buying the BS being tossed out by the loser


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duK9fDVBq9I


red states rule. You have to remember. Log is a newly appointed member of the Liberal wing of Admin here on DP. So, any comment Log makes that seems partisan...while admin. Must be ignored, and we are not permitted to complain about such things..because they are disguised later on in RED letters. Which gives license to whatever they want to do. And nobody is permitted to DARE complain about it...OR ELSE.

[jimnyc]

red states rule. You have to remember. Log is a newly appointed member of the Liberal wing of Admin here on DP. So, any comment Log makes that seems partisan...while admin. Must be ignored, and we are not permitted to complain about such things..because they are disguised later on in RED letters. Which gives license to whatever they want to do. And nobody is permitted to DARE complain about it...OR ELSE.

Sorry you can't comprehend the rules and would prefer to complain. Not in this midst of these threads.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Back on topic. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/15/hickenlooper-no-national-message-colorado-gun-cont/ Hickenlooper: No national message in Colorado gun-control recalls Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper says last week’s victory by gun-rights voters in the state’s recall elections shouldn’t be seen as a litmus test for the rest of the nation — or even the rest of the state.

The Democratic governor, appearing on CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday, said the recalls of two state lawmakers, both Democrats, who supported gun-control legislation he signed earlier this year were more about local politics.
“I’m not sure it has a national message or even a statewide message,” he said. “These are very specific districts.”

Asked if the recall indicated a broader unease with the Democratic Party’s social agenda, including the support for gay marriage, the governor said that’s “certainly possible. But I haven’t felt that.”

The governor seemed to take a swipe at New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, who helped fund the anti-recall effort — something that might have backfired in Colorado, Mr. Hickenlooper said.

“There is a certain resentment. Outside money coming in is generally not welcome [in Colorado],” the governor said.


Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/15/hickenlooper-no-national-message-colorado-gun-cont/#ixzz2f9eKFlR1
Sure, no message being sent to anti-gun idiots. :laugh2:--Tyr

[red states rule]

Sure, no message being sent to anti-gun idiots. :laugh2:--Tyr

With libs simply saying it makes it true

Look at what the Obama lap dogs post here everyday

[Arbo]

With libs simply saying it makes it true

Look at what the Obama lap dogs post here everyday

Nobody saying something 'makes it true.' Who are the lapdogs you claim exist? Can you back this up by pointing them out and pointing out posts that make them lap dogs?

[fj1200]

Nobody saying something 'makes it true.' Who are the lapdogs you claim exist? Can you back this up by pointing them out and pointing out posts that make them lap dogs?

This is going to be good. :laugh:

[red states rule]

http://www.smithandwessonforums.com/forum/attachments/lounge/11713d1354737095-funny-pro-gun-images-nra-gun-control.jpg

[Arbo]

This is going to be good. :laugh:

Eh, no response.

[red states rule]

http://www.smithandwessonforums.com/forum/attachments/lounge/11691d1354686235-funny-pro-gun-images-542567_281427401959733_289292360_n.jpg

[fj1200]

Eh, no response.

No surprise. The usual response is the sound of a scared little girl running.

[red states rule]

http://jokideo.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/527469_403707589702381_1572884587_n1.png