13

Subject: Tall Skinny Lawyers

Posted by richrobinson 10 years, 5 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 5.
  • Posted by Herb7734 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    So, it's merely a matter "of two evils, choose the lesser." I was aware of both of the sins of Google and Bing. I use Google simply because I'm more familiar with it. I only learn new things if they interest me or have some utility value. For example, I just obtained Dragon, the voice to typing program since my hands are being attacked by neuropathy and I'm a lousy typist to begin with. At my age I can assume room temperature at any time so I won't waste any of it if I can help it.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Neither did any of the southern states seek nor obtain agreement from their fellow states to dissolution. Same difference.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Technocracy 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I can not agree with that premise.

    Any "contractual arrangement" must be between the states as individuals.

    The federal government was a by product to the union of States. Not a party to it, since it did not exist prior to the formation of that union.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I'm not so sure that the 17th Amendment logically flowed from the Civil War, and since it took about 50 yrs, I don't think that you can make that case. No, it flowed more from progressivism and a thought that the intellectuals and direct election was preferable. I doubt that most of those evaluating the amendment were looking at this as a states rights/sovereignty issue as much as that "the people" should have direct involvement in electing the "elites" to rule.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    What I mean by unilateral, is that only one party decided that secession was conducted. I would say that this is a contractual situation, and both parties must agree. But as I said, since it isn't addressed in the Constitution, the question is still to be resolved.

    I don't think that the Fed Gov't has assumed all sovereign power. As I said, the question seems to still be outstanding. Until/unless there is a definitive answer, we still don't know. For example, could current states "buy" their way out of the union?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I'm not going to defend the tariff situation. But that was created by the congress. Makes one wonder about the basic system. Should this not have been a legal challenge taken to the SCOTUS? Either the system is proper or it isn't.

    In the end, a great evil was eliminated. Whether that was the underlying intent or not seems immaterial. Had the war not been fought, would the end result been much different? Certainly slavery would have continued for some period of time longer, but do you think it would still exist today? Doubtful. Would a South, as a separate nation be much different? I think it would be much worse off.

    I find the motivations much less important than the results.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    South Carolina's secession was a consequence of the unbearable tariff situation.

    Regarding "One cannot say that it was authorized for the South to secede and that they should retain rights in the Congress", seceding states should only have lost rights in the Congress AFTER secession, but likewise, after secession, what right did the federal government have to continue taxing them? South Carolina viewed their situation before secession as "taxation by the two wolves and one sheep deciding what is for dinner rule". After secession, they viewed themselves as independent. Go to Charleston, SC sometime, and listen to their side of the story. It is much different than what is taught in the textbooks.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Technocracy is right on this one. The loss of state sovereignty was instrumental in the eventual changes regarding how senators are elected, which in turn, has turned a constitutionally limited republic into a mob rule democracy.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I would be happier not to be saddled by the looters from DC and the moochers from large Blue cities.

    The end of slavery was a "good" thing, but at what cost? The cost was more than a loss of lives.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Technocracy 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The Union is therefore not voluntary. And it wasn't unilateral action either, more than a single state seceded.

    Claiming that as a unilateral action is the equivalent of saying the the US acted unilaterally in both Kuwait and Iraq. When in fact a coalition took action in both interventions.

    It follows that the Federal Government has abrogated all sovereign power to itself since the civil war.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I don't think that it actually answered that question. What it did answer is that unilateral action is not permitted to dissolve a union.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I seem to recall that it was South Carolina that seceded from the Union that was the spark that caused the Civil War. We can argue whether secession was legal or not, there is no definitive answer. As such it was up to the President and Congress to determine how to address the action.

    One cannot say that it was authorized for the South to secede and that they should retain rights in the Congress. You just can't have it both ways. And if they hadn't seceded, then their actions were civil insurrection properly under the purview of the federal government.

    The cause of slavery was clearly brought out in the Lincoln/Douglas debates. While Lincoln was not a vociferous opponent to such in the debates, one must recognize that in an environment in which the southern states were part of the electorate, like any politician, Lincoln could not take a strong position that would alienate a good portion of the voters.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Technocracy 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Depends on your perspective doesn't it?

    The war resolved the question as to are the states individually sovereign or not. The answer after the war is that the states are no longer sovereign.

    In that respect I definitely do NOT consider it a good thing.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    But was it a good thing or not? Sometimes the right thing is brought about in the wrong way.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Like Brenner states, there aren't many search engines that aren't corrupted. Google uses your info, and their clients interests to manipulate the ranking of the items that it shows you. I think it is being done for nefarious/political purposes.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by freedomforall 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    No doubt, Lincoln was clever. But so are most of the congess-critters with power in the Dark Center today. Those who published the history of Lincoln were crafty, too, but they had to make it appear that the war was moral and to blame it on the loser, who never gets any say in how history is written. They took a 'cleverly crafted proposition' that freed no one and claimed for all posterity that Lincoln freed the slaves to justify his acts of war against his own people who resisted because Lincoln was a looter who was stealing from one group of American's and giving the proceeds to his pals who in return advanced Lincoln's power.
    Most of Lincoln's rave reviews come from big government looters, but the most objective look at Lincoln comes from Thomas DiLorenzo, not a southerner, who rips the facade off the sleezy politician. If you really want to know the facts about Lincoln and his Tariff War, read "The Real Lincoln."
    It isn't people who can't come to grips with acts in war that criticize Lincoln. It's people with conscience that were taught to think that America stands for something better, and that hiding the truth is reprehensible. Lincoln was reprehensible and the history written about him is a fraud.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Google has an agenda most people don't know about. They were the driving force behind the Arab Spring, for example. But Microsoft (owner of Bing) is not a lot better. Frankly there are no good search engines left since Yahoo ruined AltaVista, the last search engine that didn't add a bunch of "hits" that really weren't hits.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Regardless of whether I am a Southerner or not, Lincoln was a mixed bag as a president. People forget that the Civil War started more over tariffs than slavery, particularly on agricultural goods, that by far disproportionately affected the South. After the secession, Lincoln barricaded Charleston as retribution for the South's no longer paying the tariffs. Moreover, the Emancipation Proclamation and other bills passed after Lincoln's executive orders "passed" without votes from the South and then were enforced on the losing subjects after the War of Northern Aggression.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    OK, Robbie, I'm learning.
    Look, I'm a very old guy. Even though I have been using computers for over 20 years, I am the kind of user who just sticks to what I've learned. I don't know, or really care to know how it works, just so long as it works. Why pray tell, is Google evil, why is Bing superior? I've been using Google since its inception. Is Bing easier to use? How does it differ from Google? At present I am reading 3 different books, and doing research and communicating with people all over the world. I really don't want to learn any new computer programs. Help!
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Google is evil - use Bing instead.

    There are many who want to knock Lincoln. They are either southerners who can't get over that they lost, or they are those who can't come to grips with the fact that in light of a war, actions need to be taken to win that otherwise wouldn't be permitted. The real question is are those actions temporary or permanent. In the case of Lincoln, they were either temporary or were subsequently ratified by the congress.

    As for the EP, that was a cleverly crafted proposition. Since Lincoln couldn't enact laws (or amend the Constitution) by himself, he couldn't change the law in those states that remained in the Union, but he could take a military measure (which is what the EP was) to deal with the populace in warring territory. It actually was quite a clever solution - the slaves didn't need to be emancipated in the North, because there weren't any (or very many), and by using a military proclamation, he sidestepped the legal aspect.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo