Why We Need Abe Lincoln Back

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:
Just a few months ago everyone here was demanding Mitt Romney.

[/quote]

Apparently you read as well as those blind fish that reside deep in the ocean’s basins.
[/quote]

There exists reasons why a blind fish cannot read, just as there exist reasons why the gum on the bottom of my shoe cannot comprehend. [/quote]

Your Romney post was so nonsensical that it leads me to believe you are a blind fish with gum under your gills.[/quote]

Makes sense to most folks here, which is why I think your comprehension skills are that of a gumshoe, non humanoid sort. Impeach, snowmobiles, and cow husbandry… And shoulder length gloves for them heifers you you enjoy so much… Well that’s at least how I imagine you. How are those stereotypes for Montana folk? Are the Heifers bashful?

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]magick wrote:

Even if we do suppose that Obama is actually a Muslim who wants to destroy the country- can someone tell me how he’ll manage to do that when he doesn’t control Congress?[/quote]

The Bam has certainly given it a shot. Never before has a chief executive thwarted and circumvented Congress like this “constitutional scholar.” He should be impeached if for no other reason than just this.[/quote]

How is “thwarting” Congress an attempt to destroy the country?

I’ll let you know, I’m not your huckleberry when it comes to flogging my backside, you should keep that between you and those Heifers you enjoy so much in Montana. All your talk of long hard toiling stuff, man I don’t swing that way, but I got nothing against it. I got some long hard stuff of my own but that’s not stuff I share with the guys. So, I decline on that, not my thing you big smelly wannabe pushy.

As long as I’ve been here I’ve been game for all comers when it has come to ethics and politics. Wit and whatever else you claim to have are mere sophistries, if I play those games it’s on accident, as I never claimed nor intended to come across with wit. As far as talking shit, I give back what I get.

Nothing is more entertaining than lefty’s and Contemporary American Liberals that use homosexual references as an insult…

Priceless.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]magick wrote:

Even if we do suppose that Obama is actually a Muslim who wants to destroy the country- can someone tell me how he’ll manage to do that when he doesn’t control Congress?[/quote]

The Bam has certainly given it a shot. Never before has a chief executive thwarted and circumvented Congress like this “constitutional scholar.” He should be impeached if for no other reason than just this.[/quote]

How is “thwarting” Congress an attempt to destroy the country?[/quote]

Well, let’s put it this way: destroy the Constitution and you’ve effectively destroyed the country as we have known it. He is doing a grand job of urinating on the compact between the states.
[/quote]

How is he destroying the Constitution any more than Bush?

[quote]Severiano wrote:
you big smelly wannabe pushy.
[/quote]

Third grade playground insults and homo jokes.

Stay classy.

My history might be rusty, but wasnt the Civil War fought for the right for States to govern themselves independently, and only after the North started to win the war, did it become about free’ing the slaves?

Also that picture on the first page, you could totally have Hugh Jackman grow a beard, throw on the same outfit, and strike a pose and I’d bet they’d look like brothers.

[quote]Quasi-Tech wrote:
My history might be rusty, but wasnt the Civil War fought for the right for States to govern themselves independently, and only after the North started to win the war, did it become about free’ing the slaves?
[/quote]

No.

The war was always about slaves, but the southern States used claims of rights in lieu of saying we just want slavery.

But this is simplifying the matter, because the southern States considered slaves property, and the abolitionists’ efforts to free slaves as tantamount to removing their property. Which is true, given that slaves were considered property under law at that point in time.

So the slave debate/conflict became one where the abolitionists were fighting for an ideological cause, because the economic substance simply wasn’t relevant to them, whereas the folks in the southern States were fighting for their economic rights, as it were.

The war itself began because the leaders in the southern States got this idea in their heads that Lincoln wanted to free slaves, though he repeatedly said he didn’t want to do that because he knew it would lead to a bloody war, or at least severe violence. So when Lincoln got elected, they decided to secede from the Union. Lincoln said secession is actually not allowed in the Constitution, the folks in the southern States said it is.

And then an army raised under the flag of the CSA besieged a fort which sat on a strategic location, which Lincoln tried to resupply sometime later. The army fired on and forced the convoy back, and then later stormed and took the fort.

And thus began the war.

Anyways, the war didn’t initially start to end slavery because Lincoln saw it as a rebellion, and thus putting the rebellion down was priority. But the pertinent issue that the war began because of the issue over slavery always remained, and later on it became obvious to just about everyone in power that it had to be resolved here and now, or else there will be another war down the road if the U.S.A did manage to win and force the southern States back into its fold.

But because the general public didn’t much like the idea of freeing slaves when the army should be focused on wrecking the heck out of the secessionists, and because the border states still had a bunch of slaves and weren’t all that keen in freeing their slaves, Lincoln had to use a smokescreen that is called the Emancipation Proclamation instead of just going full out and saying the obvious.

And only once the war was nearly over did he have the political clout to outright try for the 14th Amendment, because by that point the general public bought the idea that the war really was about the issue over slavery.

And that’s why you still have people spouting nonsense that the war wasn’t about slaves.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Nothing is more entertaining than lefty’s and Contemporary American Liberals that use homosexual references as an insult…

Priceless. [/quote]

He’s the male telling the other male how he’s going to impose himself and toil long and hard on me. So I guess it’s okay when a conservative American has a little fun with homosexuality, but not a liberal? (Sarcasm by the way)

As far as I’m concerned he took it there by assigning a feminine name to me and then talking about long hard toiling and stuff he likes to do with cows in Montana. Funny thing is, you all get uncomfortable when homosexuality comes up, but none of you bitched or moaned about bestiality, which is a curious thing isn’t it Beans? Isn’t it?

Now, stank ash pushy all of a sudden too good to trade jabs with me because I’m too classroom? I only went classroom because he did first. Only giving back what I get.

[quote]Severiano wrote:

He’s the male telling the other male how he’s going to impose himself and toil long and hard on me.[/quote]

The wonderful thing about internet forums is you can, get this, go back and read what was said, in the context it was said in.

please actually show the quotes, in full context where this happened.

Seeing as Push didn’t make any sexual references at all to you… Paternal and authoritative jabs? Sure. Sexual? Not even close.

So, your failed attempt at a point, it is moot.

Seeing as you are the one that brought up the cows, bestiality and are now trying revisionist history when the thread is open for all to read, yes, it is curious.

[quote] Only giving back what I get.

[/quote]

No not really. You’re making up alternate universes where what you describe in this post actually happened. In reality, you brought up most of the things in this post you blame on Push.

If we bring Lincoln back hopefully its the Kick ass vampire slaying one becuase that dude from the 4 hr movie was boring as shit…

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

In the United States the CIVIL war was fought to end slavery. To President Lincoln, the very idea of one person taking the fruits of another person’s labor IE: “SLAVERY” was VILE, immoral and repugnant and he went to war to end the practice. It still is in my mind.
[/quote]

No, he just wanted to get the blacks out of the country.

That’s really the only reason why the north didn’t have slaves too; not because of some moral issue with slavery, but because they didn’t want to live around blacks.

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

In the United States the CIVIL war was fought to end slavery. To President Lincoln, the very idea of one person taking the fruits of another person’s labor IE: “SLAVERY” was VILE, immoral and repugnant and he went to war to end the practice. It still is in my mind.
[/quote]

No, he just wanted to get the blacks out of the country.

That’s really the only reason why the north didn’t have slaves too; not because of some moral issue with slavery, but because they didn’t want to live around blacks. [/quote]

Well, that and the fact that the Northern economy was predominantly industrial rather than agricultural. When you have a surfeit of Irishmen and children and women working in your factories and mills and sweatshops, you really don’t need to go to Africa to procure your cheap labor.

Of course not many people realize that in the 17th and 18th centuries, far more Irish than Africans were transported across the Atlantic to work as slaves in the sugarcane and tobacco plantations of the American South and Caribbean. But it’s a fact.

And don’t fool yourself. The North imported plenty of African slaves, particularly in New Jersey. There’s a great story about a ship that was being unloaded in New York harbor. A reporter noted that the men on deck were African slaves, while the men below, passing the heavy bales up from the hold, were all Irish slaves. Obviously the Irish had the far more dangerous task, because if a bale slipped it could fall on the Irishmen and crush them.

The reporter asked the harbor master about this. “Oh, it’s simple,” the man told him. “Niggers cost money. The Irish are worthless!”

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

In the United States the CIVIL war was fought to end slavery. To President Lincoln, the very idea of one person taking the fruits of another person’s labor IE: “SLAVERY” was VILE, immoral and repugnant and he went to war to end the practice. It still is in my mind.
[/quote]

No, he just wanted to get the blacks out of the country.

That’s really the only reason why the north didn’t have slaves too; not because of some moral issue with slavery, but because they didn’t want to live around blacks. [/quote]

Well, that and the fact that the Northern economy was predominantly industrial rather than agricultural. When you have a surfeit of Irishmen and children and women working in your factories and mills and sweatshops, you really don’t need to go to Africa to procure your cheap labor.

Of course not many people realize that in the 17th and 18th centuries, far more Irish than Africans were transported across the Atlantic to work as slaves in the sugarcane and tobacco plantations of the American South and Caribbean. But it’s a fact.

And don’t fool yourself. The North imported plenty of African slaves, particularly in New Jersey. There’s a great story about a ship that was being unloaded in New York harbor. A reporter noted that the men on deck were African slaves, while the men below, passing the heavy bales up from the hold, were all Irish slaves. Obviously the Irish had the far more dangerous task, because if a bale slipped it could fall on the Irishmen and crush them.

The reporter asked the harbor master about this. “Oh, it’s simple,” the man told him. “Niggers cost money. The Irish are worthless!”[/quote]

Yeah, NJ gave it a shot, and we can see how well it caught on.

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

In the United States the CIVIL war was fought to end slavery. To President Lincoln, the very idea of one person taking the fruits of another person’s labor IE: “SLAVERY” was VILE, immoral and repugnant and he went to war to end the practice. It still is in my mind.
[/quote]

No, he just wanted to get the blacks out of the country.

That’s really the only reason why the north didn’t have slaves too; not because of some moral issue with slavery, but because they didn’t want to live around blacks. [/quote]

Well, that and the fact that the Northern economy was predominantly industrial rather than agricultural. When you have a surfeit of Irishmen and children and women working in your factories and mills and sweatshops, you really don’t need to go to Africa to procure your cheap labor.

Of course not many people realize that in the 17th and 18th centuries, far more Irish than Africans were transported across the Atlantic to work as slaves in the sugarcane and tobacco plantations of the American South and Caribbean. But it’s a fact.

And don’t fool yourself. The North imported plenty of African slaves, particularly in New Jersey. There’s a great story about a ship that was being unloaded in New York harbor. A reporter noted that the men on deck were African slaves, while the men below, passing the heavy bales up from the hold, were all Irish slaves. Obviously the Irish had the far more dangerous task, because if a bale slipped it could fall on the Irishmen and crush them.

The reporter asked the harbor master about this. “Oh, it’s simple,” the man told him. “Niggers cost money. The Irish are worthless!”[/quote]

Yeah, NJ gave it a shot, and we can see how well it caught on. [/quote]

Interesting bit of trivia: during the American Revolution the colonies of New York and New Jersey fielded more volunteers to fight for the British than to fight for the Continental Army. Many of the New Jersey volunteers were Arfrican slaves who figured that they could buy their freedom with their service once the British won. We see how that worked out for them.