13

Subject: Tall Skinny Lawyers

Posted by richrobinson 9 years, 4 months ago to The Gulch: General
178 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag



This may be old but it's the first time I saw it.

Subject: Tall Skinny Lawyers



You might be quite surprised ...Most of us know of the comparable relationship between Lincoln and Kennedy, but have you ever considered the comparisons between President Obama and President Lincoln?

Parallels of Abraham Lincoln and Barack Hussein Obama.

1. Lincoln placed his hand on the Bible for his inauguration. Obama used the very same bible Lincoln used for his inauguration.

2. Lincoln came from Illinois. Obama comes from Illinois.

3. Lincoln served in the Illinois Legislature. Obama served in the Illinois Legislature.

4. Lincoln had very little experience before becoming President. Obama had very little experience before becoming President.

5. Lincoln rode the train from Philadelphia to Washington for his inauguration. Obama rode the train from Philadelphia to Washington for his inauguration.

6. Lincoln was highly respected by some, but intensely disliked by others. Obama is highly respected by some, but intensely disliked by others.

7. Abraham Lincoln was a tall, skinny lawyer. Barack Obama is a tall, skinny lawyer.

8. Lincoln held to basic Conservative and Christian views. Obama is a tall, skinny lawyer.

9. Lincoln volunteered in the Illinois militia, once as a captain, twice as a private. Obama is a tall, skinny lawyer.

10. Lincoln firmly believed in able persons carrying their own weight. Obama is a tall, skinny lawyer.

11. Lincoln was undeniably, and without any doubt, born in the United States. Obama is a tall, skinny lawyer.

12. Lincoln was honest - so honest that he was called 'Honest Abe'. Obama is a tall, skinny lawyer.

13. Lincoln preserved the United States as a strong nation, respected by the world. Obama is a tall, skinny lawyer.

14. Lincoln showed his obvious respect for the flag, and the military. Obama is a tall, skinny lawyer.

15. Lincoln followed the U.S Constitution faithfully. Obama is a tall, skinny lawyer.


Amazing isn't it!!


All Comments


Previous comments...   You are currently on page 3.
  • Posted by 9 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Good one OA. Are you watching the State of the Union? I thought about it and then realized I am out of puke bags.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by freedomforall 9 years, 4 months ago
    They are not relevant. If there had been no tariff there would have been no war.
    Read DiLorenzo's book, then we can talk further.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by freedomforall 9 years, 4 months ago
    Everything King George did regarding the colonies was legal.
    Slavery was legal.
    Lincoln refused to meet with the southern representatives to prevent war. That was legal, too.
    Dictators do things every day that are legal, and are reprehensible.
    Lincoln arrested many who spoke out against him. That was not legal, but Saint Lincoln gets a grand memorial in the Dark Center.
    Sometimes legal isn't enough, and men of conscience do not accept it.
    I do not accept Obama's legal orders regarding health care whether passed by con-gress or not.
    But this is way off topic ;^)
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 9 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The Congress passed a bill in both houses, and sent that legislation to the President who signed it into law. It was done according to the methods prescribed by the Constitution.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 9 years, 4 months ago
    Lincoln released people from the plantation... Obama has tethered people to the state plantation...
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 9 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    How do you rectify that with Lincoln's Cooper Union speech - given before he was the Republican candidate for President? And even with the Lincoln-Douglas debates conducted 2 years earlier?
    Reply | Permalink  
    • freedomforall replied 9 years, 4 months ago
  • Posted by freedomforall 9 years, 4 months ago
    Yes, slavery ended earlier than it would have, but that doesn't excuse the reasons for the war, nor justify the war, nor excuse Lincoln's premeditated acts in causing the war. (In my opinion;^)
    Apologies if it appears that I am too vociferous in my comments. I hate what happened to the republic as a result of Lincoln's actions, and the fact (imo) that Lincoln has escaped responsibility for them.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 9 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Was the action done "legally?" In that it followed whatever legal process there was to enact such a tariff? If so, then the South had no cause to complain.

    We face much the same today. I am forced to purchase healthcare insurance against my will (Ok, I really don't have to since my employer provides same, but I would if they didn't). Do I have justification just to stop paying my taxes? I wish that I did, as I'd do so immediately (and that doesn't even identify all the other things that I don't agree with in all the alphabet agencies). You can argue that it was punitive and wrong all you want, but if it was enacted legally, you have no basis for supporting illegal action.

    As I said before, the issue of secession is not yet settled. What is settled is that a state once having joined the union cannot unilaterally dissolve that union. It may be possible if both parties agree on the dissolution (or the other states agree on absolving one of them of their bonds to the union, I hope that is the case).
    Reply | Permalink  
    • freedomforall replied 9 years, 4 months ago
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 9 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I keep telling you (and others) that I don't dispute that. Regardless of whether slavery itself was the cause, the result is that slavery was abolished, decades before it would have been otherwise.
    Reply | Permalink  
    • freedomforall replied 9 years, 4 months ago
  • Posted by 9 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I feel the same way. I thought things turned around under Reagan but Bush 1 and Bush 2 along with Clinton were globalist and progressive. Obama is just a little more obvious about his agenda.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Technocracy 9 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Congress enacted it as the Affordable Care Act.
    The media and politicians nick named it ObamaCare since he was pushing congress for it.

    It was created/written by staff from the white house and congress along with outside consultants.
    It was not written by Obama OR Congress
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by sumitch 9 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    And congress turns a blind eye to this. Something has gone seriously wrong over the last 20-30 years or maybe I just wasn't paying enough attention.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by sumitch 9 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I've a #1 son that is a developer (he corrected me when I called him a programmer) for Yahoo in San Jose. He was just transferred there last June. I mistakenly gave him access to my computer so he could fix some bugs for me and thereafter he was constantly sending me new wowsy programs. He just can't understand that I'm almost out of my league after email, spreadsheets and the calculator. I have to admit that I'm using the dictionary more than ever to try and keep up with some of the discussions in here.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by freedomforall 9 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Again, it wasn't about slavery. the South didn't oppose the north on slavery because it wasn't an issue at the time. Not an issue that caused the war, only an excuse to fraudulently justify the illegitimate war. Read more about the history of tariffs imposed by the Whigs and then by GOP on the south.
    And read DiLorenzo's book The Real Lincoln, not just others commentary on DiLorenzo. Its akin to reading liberal reviews of Atlas Shrugged.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by sumitch 9 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I prefer the notion that Lincoln was working to save the republic. A radio host that I like , Mark Davis, said that was true but if you were black it was definitely about slavery.
    Reply | Permalink  
    • freedomforall replied 9 years, 4 months ago
  • Posted by Herb7734 9 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    My copy seems to work OK. It's a little herky-jerky but I have the cheapest version. Apparently, the version I have as advertised on TV, is a door buster used to get you to buy the $199 version. Fat chance.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by freedomforall 9 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Please read the history of the tariffs. There was a previous instance showing exactly how serious the south was in opposing such a tariff. History called it the Tariff of Abominations and it caused the Nullification Crisis. This continued to cause political conflict for 20 years thereafter between the Whigs and the Democratic party. The Whigs did not survive their own stupidity but memebrs of the party created the GOP and followed the same insane path demanding corporate welfare for the north to be paid by the south. Lincoln and the GOP and their backers knew that the south would not stand for such a tariff and they proceeded with it anyway. They wanted to crush the opposition in the south by any means necessary including war.
    That was the situation and the reason for the war. It was premeditated and it had nothing to do with slavery.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff_of_A...
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by freedomforall 9 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You don't have the data to discuss this without being misled by fraudulent historians.
    Slavery wasn't the issue; it was only used to bless Lincoln's sin by the powers that wanted war for economic reasons. The war was about money and power for Lincoln and his backers, but that would have meant history would brand Lincoln and his GOP as the war criminals that they were. No, they had to have a moral imperative and the American public swallowed the con because it was pounded into the heads of all the children at government schools.
    If you don't care about discussing this, go ahead and judge only on the basis of the government's case, while ignoring the evidence presented by the counsel for the defense. The loser of the war (outnumbered 3 to 1) is guilty and sentenced to hard labor without benefit of representation.
    You can not justify this war by not reading the case against it.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 9 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    In looking for some info on DiLorenzo, I came upon this article by DiL on a book by Thomas Fleming: "Fleming actually understates this point: Slavery only benefited the slave-owners who exploited the slaves but was economically harmful to all the rest of Southern society because slave labor is inherently inferior to free labor. The entire South was poorer as a result. Moreover, the average Confederate soldier, who was a yeoman farmer who owned no slaves, was harmed by the slave-owning plantation owners through unfair competition."

    So, according to Fleming (and DiL I would imagine), the entire South rose up in order to protect an economic system that was inferior, and dominated by a small minority just for giggles it would seem. They would have thrown off the culture of slavery immediately and willingly had the North merely negotiated with them? It is not that simple.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 9 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I've never said that the issue was slavery, merely that the result was an end to slavery. That was a moral good, regardless of the cause itself.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 9 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Do you seriously believe that the South was going to negotiate away its entire economic system and culture? I don't think so.

    Whitney invented the cotton gin in 1794, yet 70 yrs later, slaves were still being used to pick cotton. The constraint of separating the seeds from the fibers dictated machinery, but the labor of picking the cotton was not constrained, nor was automation cost effective compared to slave costs. The south was not going to impose additional costs upon itself to replace slaves with machines on its own.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo