Skip to main content
  • CNSNews.com
  • MRC TV
  • Biz & Media
  • Culture & Media
  • Take Action!

Join Us @:
Facebook
Twitter
Amazon Kindle

Free email alerts!

NewsBusters logo
June 19, 2013
  • Home
  • Blogs
  • About
  • Forum
  • Take Action
  • Contact
  • Donate
  • Search
  • RSS

Hot Topics

  • Obama ScandalWatch
  • IRS Targets Tea Party
  • Censoring the News
Home » Blogs » Brent Baker's blog
  • Martin Bashir, Who Compared Conservatives to Hitler, Now Decries Nazi Comparisons
  • Bob Herbert: There Would Be Tons of Outrage on Left if Bush-Cheney Pursued Obama’s Policies
  • Liberal College Students Sign Petition to Make Spying on Fox News Legal
  • ABC Hypes Obama Family's 'Beautiful' Vacation, Avoids Any Hint of Extravagance
  • Piers Morgan Defends the Nanny State: 'People Need Nannying'
  • Liberal Pundit Marc Lamont Hill Condemns Photo of Obama Holding ‘Military Style’ Watergun
  • New Liberal Study 'Lends Credence to Conservative Charges' of Bias; Dramatic Media Tilt Toward 'Gay Marriage'
  • Senate Amnesty Supporters Boast Marco Rubio ‘Neutralized’ Limbaugh, Fox News

In Libya Interview, Sawyer Asks Obama About Praying Like Lincoln and ‘How Much Do You Think Kentucky Will Win By?’

By Brent Baker | March 30, 2011 | 09:14

A  A
Brent Baker's picture

The broadcast evening news anchors all got ten minutes with President Barack Obama on Tuesday afternoon in New York City to press him about contradictions in his Libya policy, ceding authority for foreign entities and how he’s a hypocrite after his criticism of President Bush for unilateral actions and not getting congressional approval, but instead they simply prodded him to provide arms to the rebels and pushed him to take action in Syria.

But ABC’s Diane Sawyer stood out for her obsequiousness as the Kentucky native ended by giddily bringing up the college basketball tournament: “How much do you think Kentucky will win by?” Before that, she cued him up to agree he’s as burdened as Abraham Lincoln:

What about the famous quote from another beleaguered President, Abraham Lincoln, who said he had been driven many times to his knees because his own wisdom and that around him “was insufficient for the day”?

Obama assured her: “I do a lot of praying.”

Following the interview except, Sawyer personalized her “beleaguered President” theme:

By the way, on that avalanche of crises the President faces every day – from Libya to Iraq to Afghanistan to nuclear crises in Japan – the President goes home every day to talk to his daughters about his day. I ask him what does he say to them about days like this? And you can see that at ABCNews.com/World News.

She had teased World News: “One on One: I ask the President about cutting a deal with Moammar Gadhafi and does he ever say ‘what's going on with this avalanche of world crises’?”

Brian Williams teased the NBC Nightly News: “‘Not ruling it out.’ Tonight, in our conversation with President Obama, he leaves the door open to arming those rebels in Libya.”

For CBS, Erica Hill landed the sit-down with Obama, which she teased: “Tonight, keeping up the pressure on Gadafi. The new air strikes and a diplomatic push. We talk to the President.”

Hill posed about the toughest question, which shows just how soft the sessions were: “The supreme allied commander for NATO said today that there are flickers of al Qaeda and Hezbollah amongst these rebels. How do we know what their end goal is? And how do we know they won't, in fact, turn on the U.S. and on our allies?”

Diane Sawyer’s questions to Obama as aired on the Tuesday, March 29 ABC World News:

- In my interview with the President I started by asking about Gadhafi and those reports he is trying to make a deal. [To Obama:] As of this moment, any sign Gadhafi wants out?

- If Gadhafi ends up in a villa someplace in Zimbabwe with no war crimes trial, is that okay with you?

- Have you made, or would you make any calls to say “take him”?

- We are hearing tonight, it’s fierce fighting, the U.S. must send munitions. How long would it take to get there?

- Can we say that we could have it [arms] in there in a day, in two days?

- I want to try to clarify what you’re saying today to the people of Syria. [Sawyer narration: We specifically asked the President, is he saying to the protesters in Syria that if they meet the five criteria he laid out last night] Are you saying to them we will be there for you as we were there in Libya?

- Even if these paper criteria are met?

- What about the famous quote from another beleaguered President, Abraham Lincoln, who said he had been driven many times to his knees because his own wisdom and that around him “was insufficient for the day”? [Obama: “I do a lot of praying.”]

- Just a final question: How much do you think Kentucky will win by?

Erica Hill’s questions to Obama as excerpted on the CBS Evening News:

- Earlier today I spoke with President Obama here in New York. He has made it clear, from the beginning, he wants Gaddafi out. But what if he doesn’t go?

- Are there also discussions and even perhaps meetings at all with people in Muammar Gaddafi's camp?

- The supreme allied commander for NATO said today that there are flickers of al Qaeda and Hezbollah amongst these rebels. How do we know what their end goal is? And how do we know they won't, in fact, turn on the U.S. and on our allies?

- Can you give us an idea of what some of those goals are [for the Libyan rebels]? Beyond just removing Qaddafi from power?

- You mentioned the region. There's obviously so much focus on the region at this point. From everything we've seen over the last couple of months, there is renewed focus, though, on Syria. What would it take, what circumstances in particular would lead to direct involvement from the U.S. in Syria?

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

The questions from Williams to Obama run on the NBC Nightly News:

- The moment your speech ended last night the Associated Press put out an item that read: “President Obama’s speech was about defending the first war launched on his watch.” How does it end?

- What if it doesn’t work? What if the rebels find themselves bogged down, this becomes protracted?

- How do you not offer the rebels direct assistance of some sort?

- Due respect, Mr. President, watching the reportings of our two correspondents in Libya, what it appears the rebels need is military equipment. Some of their equipment dates back to World War II. Are you ruling out U.S. military hardware assistance?

- Three weeks from now, if a member of your circle makes an impassioned case to do the same in Syria, to finally de-couple it from Iran, what do you do?

- So when people hear words like “values” and “interests” and your phrase “the flow of commerce” – which some people couldn’t help but substitute oil – they shouldn’t think that there is any blanket policy, this may be an ad-hoc business if this so-called Arab Spring turns into Arab Summer and we keep at this, watching countries change?

— Brent Baker is Vice President for Research and Publications at the Media Research Center. Click here to follow him on Twitter.

About the Author

Brent Baker is Vice President for Research and Publications at the Media Research Center. Click here to follow Brent Baker on Twitter.
  • Libya
  • Erica Hill
  • CBS Evening News
  • NBC Nightly News
  • World News
  • Obama Watch
  • Brent Baker's blog
  • Login to post comments
  • Printer-friendly version
Stop George Soros

Comments

He "does a lot of praying"

Submitted by Texndoc on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 9:33am.

Yeah right. A malignant narcissus has one god: himself.

And he sits like a girl. Damn I hope our military and country survives until 2012. Talk abut easy pickings for North Korea to start up now. And Tom Brokaw whining that "oh never has a President faced so much hostility world wide...."

Well, maybe it's because we elected a nothing who the dictators of the world know is about as much a Commander in Chief as a Barbie doll.

  • Login to post comments

Texndoc, you are right! "A

Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 9:44am.

Texndoc, you are right! "A malignant narcissus has one god: himself." Also on N. Korea. Good point. Weakness is the time to strike. N. Korea & Iran are likely encouraged to do something now. What a sorry Country hating excuse of a "citizen."

-- Maximusbraveheart -- Is TRUTH knowable? Moral Relativism is the abandonment of Truth. Truth is knowable. Truth conforms to Reality. Reality is observable by evidence & witness in this day & from history. Relativism is Sesame Street play land.

  • Login to post comments

He does a lot of praying?

Submitted by Ed Gregory on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 9:35am.

Oh, that's right -- he has to bow toward mecca five times a day.

  • Login to post comments

Kiss, kiss, kiss.

Submitted by Red Jeep on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 9:35am.

The MSM loves Obama. He's black on the outside and white on the inside and so mmm.mmm, good!

  • Login to post comments

I bet he prays 5 times a

Submitted by USA4freedom on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 9:36am.

I bet he prays 5 times a day..

Ronald Reagan, 1962: I did not leave the Democratic party, the party left me.

Insert: your name, 2008, the Republican party.

  • Login to post comments

A god Muslim does pray 5

Submitted by ricklail on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 10:10am.

A god Muslim does pray 5 times a day but I don't think he is even a good Muslim.

A well regulated militia being necessary to a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
  • Login to post comments

I would say "the chosen one"

Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 3:54pm.

I would say "the chosen one" desires us to pray to him 5 times a day. Remember when he got mad that we were not thanking him!

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/04/15/obama-mocks-tea-partiers-you-shoul...

-- Maximusbraveheart -- Is TRUTH knowable? Moral Relativism is the abandonment of Truth. Truth is knowable. Truth conforms to Reality. Reality is observable by evidence & witness in this day & from history. Relativism is Sesame Street play land.

  • Login to post comments

How can He pray to Himself?

Submitted by Unsane on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 5:52pm.

This is why I don't think He is a Muslim, or a Christian, or anything else religious.

How does one pray to Himself? 

"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)

  • Login to post comments

I'd say it's more likely that

Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 11:48am.

I'd say it's more likely that Obama is an atheist rather than a Christian or Muslim, not that it matters what faith (or lack thereof) the president is.

  • Login to post comments

Correct, which faith the POTUS is doesn't matter to anyone,

Submitted by SickofLibs on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 11:51am.

for the first time in history.

Your track record remains intact.

  • Login to post comments

That isn't what I said. I

Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 1:49pm.

That isn't what I said. I notice that your posts are often personal attacks or distortions ( or other logical fallacies). This is a sign that one is unable to respond intelligently to a topic.

  • Login to post comments

SatchelMouth, you pluperfect fool,---

Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 3:09pm.

That is exactly what your post said.

You are a damned idiot and too stupid to realize your lie is right there to be seen by all.

Moron.

Not that this is meant as a personal attack, though, sh*thead.

MD

"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)
  • Login to post comments

No, it is not. Obviously it

Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 9:31pm.

No, it is not. Obviously it matters to bigots, and maybe even those who would be quick to use words like "moron," and "shithead". Often, though, they're one in the same.

  • Login to post comments

Irony meter pegged

Submitted by Unsane on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 11:04pm.

It is quite ironic that you, a man who worships bigots, cheerfully endorses bigots and whines constantly about name-calling, is calling MD a bigot.

"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)

  • Login to post comments

As for Kentucky...

Submitted by Ed Gregory on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 9:39am.

Why would she ask him about Kentucky winning? Didn't she see his bracket?

  • Login to post comments

Why not?

Submitted by johnsonl on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 10:08am.

He set Kansas up to lose to VCU!

  • Login to post comments

My heart told me to pick my

Submitted by ricklail on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 10:14am.

My heart told me to pick my Heels. My pocketbook told me to pick Ohio State. Don't matter, both lost. If Kentucky wins it all they will get to give it back a few years down the road. Everywhere that Calipari has been has been put on probation and had all their wins stripped. Just as the leopard can't change his spots Calipari can't change his tendencies to cheat.

A well regulated militia being necessary to a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
  • Login to post comments

Envy?

Submitted by ledurchi on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 11:01am.

The Green Eyed Monster forces Roy Williams’ peanut gallery to diss Kentucky's miraculous run through the tournament - a forgivable offense.

Linking native Kentuckian Diane Sawyer to the Wildcat rise, while valid, is contemptuous. The bounds of propriety have been breached.

  • Login to post comments

Oh, spare me this pap!

Submitted by Mary Louise Turner on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 9:41am.

These weren't interviews; they were drool sessions...The make believe media "stars" once again act as though they were love-struck teenagers talking to their idol. It makes us want to reach for our barf bags yet again. It's just disgusting...You KNOW that Mr. Bush would have been roasted alive and given brutal "gotcha" questions. But at least Mr. Bush would have tried to answer them.

  • Login to post comments

Based on his plan and actions

Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 9:41am.

Based on his plan and actions to bring the USA to its knees by creating the expectation of unlimited free government services as a right (of many who never even paid in much), I wonder who is it he is praying too! It certainly is not God our Father: pro-death, pro-government schools, pro-debt, pro-Islam, and anti-Christian. His father is not our Countries Father: In God We Trust!

-- Maximusbraveheart -- Is TRUTH knowable? Moral Relativism is the abandonment of Truth. Truth is knowable. Truth conforms to Reality. Reality is observable by evidence & witness in this day & from history. Relativism is Sesame Street play land.

  • Login to post comments

Wow, Brent...GMTA!

Submitted by motherbelt on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 9:44am.

I had this article from Mediaite open in another tab from earlier, to bring up if an OT came up.

What really got me was Obama's claim that

I do a lot of praying. Absolutely. Every night, right before I go to bed. You know, and I am praying that – I’m making the best possible decisions, and that I’ve got the strength to serve the American people well.

I noticed that he says he doesn't pray for the wisdom to make the best decisions, or for the strength to serve....

Maybe I'm being nit-picky but that jumped out at me right away.

This is a man who makes his decision and then prays that it was the right one. He once said that he decided to become a Christian because he liked Christian principles, as if it was something that he could get on board with.

Now he prays that his decisions ARE the right ones.

Narcissism on stilts.

 

  • Login to post comments

How was your day?

Submitted by Ed Gregory on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 9:46am.

president zero: How was your day, girls?

girls: We had a good day. Mommy ate ribs while she watched us play in the yard for 60 minutes. How was your day?

president zero: My day was so-so. I snap-hooked my first drive into the trees but was able to foot-wedge it to a decent lie. Short game wasn't bad, though. Came thisclose to breaking 100. Can't wait to play again! Joe said he can get us on at Congressional 7:30 tomorrow morning.

  • Login to post comments

I wonder

Submitted by MOONSTRUCK on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 9:57am.

Just how long the dress rehearsals for these propaganda "interviews" take? He is so pathetic and so are the little minions that watch and trust him.

  • Login to post comments

Shame

Submitted by Six String Spiff on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 10:02am.

It's really too bad the media didn't do it's JOB and vet this incompetent, anit American, unqualified, arrogant, narcissistic, racist, BOOB.

Otherwise we might have somebody who, you know, KNOWS WHAT THE F*CK THEY ARE DOING!

I'm not surprised the media asked him about basketball though. Nothing will matter to these limousine liberals until their supply of shitty cheese and Chianti get's interrupted.

Bastards.

  • Login to post comments

My advice to Basketball Jones:

Submitted by SickofLibs on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 10:07am.

Replace The Obama Doctrine with basketball diplomacy.

By my calculations, so far we could have dropped 100 million basketballs into Libya in lieu of cruise missiles.

Just imagine the satellite shots of the landscape.

Both sides would be so cornfused, confabulated and WTF-ing that they would stop fighting for at least a week.

  • Login to post comments

Thanks, Sick

Submitted by Ed Gregory on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 10:18am.

Thanks to you, Sick, I now have a new way to refer to the ass-clown in chief. Since I refuse to utter his name, I usually refer to him as "the current president." Now, I can just call him "Basketball Jones." It satisfies those who adore him becuase it makes him seem cool, but to those of us who can't stand his existence, it speaks perfectly to how he views the presidency: as a game.

  • Login to post comments

Ed: H/T to Cheech & Chong, c. 1973

Submitted by SickofLibs on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 10:30am.

"That basketball was like a basketball to me."

And if anyone wants to accuse me of racism, see this.

  • Login to post comments

"ABC’s Diane Sawyer stood out for her obsequiousness"?!?!?

Submitted by Newsbubba on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 10:11am.

I'm amazed that she could even speak with her mouth so full!!  The only person "on their knees" here was the interviewer.

Comrade Bubba
  • Login to post comments

There's a reason why she's

Submitted by Beukeboom on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 10:21am.

There's a reason why she's known as Diane "Softball" Sawyer.

  • Login to post comments

BTW

Submitted by Six String Spiff on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 10:24am.

Oh and BTW, MSM. Please stop comparing this national embarrassment to any truly historic figure.

This empty suit couldn't even stand in their shadow.

Reagan, Lincoln, FDR, Kennedy etc. should never be mentioned when discussing whatever cluster f*ck this moron has gotten us into.

All he does is whine and bitch about how unfair everything is while at the same time NEVER taking responsibility for anything.

That Monday night campaign stop err address, was a SHAM, and the media lap dogs got tingles all up and down their legs while the rest of the country does a collective "WTF?!". You know what real Presidents do when they take the country to war? A one on one address to the nation from the Oval Office WITHOUT the teleprompter tennis match.

How many times did we hear "Me" "I" "My"? It's all about him in his world and his media enablers.

Think about this:

This man has spent more time talking to the AFL CIO head than all of his cabinet members combined.

He is not interested in making us great. He is interested in 'leveling the international playing field', or whatever other shitty, spineless, politically correct pile of garbage these leftists love to claim.

He completely botched the BP oil spill while at the same time made SURE everyone blamed BP instead of rolling up sleeves and UNITING folks to work at fixing the problem at a time when nobody was sure what caused the spill. He helped free the Lockerbie bomber. He's FOR a Mosque in NYC. He WANTED to shut Gitmo knowing full well that the inmates would go right back to terrorist activities. He turned what should have been an open and shut case regarding a stupid Harvard professor who happens to be black into a national circus with a "beer Summit" thanks to his running of his racist mouth. He had ZERO policy or intelligence about the fall of the Egyptian leader and continues to not know WTF to do about it while the void gets filled by a worse entity. He sold out the UK's missile defense plan to RUSSIA so he could get them to sign the treaty they have ALREADY backed out of. He tried the same with our own missile defense systems. Regarding Libya, his latest colossal f*ck up: Once again, he had NO IDEA what to do until of course the UN decided to maybe save a little face and prevent yet another monster from slaughtering his own people with (of course) OUR Military. This is all far from over, and hear we are listening to the media ask question about BASKETBALL to the President.

DEAR. GOD.

  • Login to post comments

Both FDR and Lincoln are two

Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 11:52am.

Both FDR and Lincoln are two of the worst presidents our country has had. I think Obama is definitely in the ranks of the worst.

  • Login to post comments

Incestmo, Confederate apologist, strikes again

Submitted by Unsane on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 3:20pm.

So, being a sick freak and an authoritarian aren't good enough for you, Incestmo? Now you wish to add "Confederate apologist" to your infamy?

And if not for WWII, I would agree on FDR.  I consider his a mixed legacy. 

Now, because I didn't 1000% agree with you, I eagerly anticipate a reply from you where you will attack my (pick one: critical thinking skills, intelligence, literacy) and then whine about my "inability to contribute to a discussion". 

"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)

  • Login to post comments

You suffer from the delusion

Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 3:36pm.

You suffer from the delusion that I care whether you agree with me or not.

  • Login to post comments

Ahh, SatchelMouth, THAT explains your ---

Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 4:05pm.

nonchalance in posting weird crap that makes no sense to anyone but you; you don't care.

What an unexpected revelation.

MD

"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)
  • Login to post comments

You, apathetic? Hardly

Submitted by Unsane on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 5:28pm.

Incestmo, if you truly didn't care whether I agreed with you or not, you wouldn't ever post a response to me ever again on NB. 

Your petulant whining only indicates to me that I struck a nerve of yours with a CEP of zero. 

You idiotic sick freak. 

"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)

  • Login to post comments

Obama Praying?

Submitted by Boil It Down on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 10:29am.

I seriously question the prayers of a man who misleads so deceitfully and lies with such flare. For him to declare his prayers gave me a bad feeling in my guts.

  • Login to post comments

Those who ACTUALLY pray

Submitted by MOONSTRUCK on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 10:59am.

Don't ACTUALLY have to be asked if they pray. It is my general notion you can tell a Christian is a Christian by his/her actions and beliefs.

Having to ask him over and over proves my point. His whole presidency is about cover-up.......

  • Login to post comments

That's Right Diane

Submitted by Comrade Jim on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 11:00am.

Implementing a no-fly zone over Libya ranks right up there with the Civil War, The Revolutionary War and World War II.

  • Login to post comments

Man, the left sure does love

Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 11:40am.

Man, the left sure does love Lincoln. I wonder how they feel about his imprisoning newspaper editors and publishers and political dissenters, shutting down over 300 newspapers, his suspension of habeas corpus, or even his censoring of telegraph communications? Well, I suppose it's no surprise that a would-be tyrant would admire a tyrant.

  • Login to post comments

Ah, Incestmo, yes, if only the Lincolns had daughters,

Submitted by SickofLibs on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 11:59am.

instead of four sons.

STFU, you POS.

  • Login to post comments

History-deficient Incestmo

Submitted by Unsane on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 3:27pm.

Yeah, Lincoln did that just for fun.  Not that there was a rebellion in progress that threatened the existence of the nation or anything silly like that. 

Good job being a Confederate apologist, sick freak. 

And the ironic thing about your pro-Confederate blast?  You are a supporter of tyranny.  That's right; you are a tyrant because you want the GOVERNMENT to determine how much we each spend on food and clothing and what IT deems are "necessary items", and from there, you want the GOVERNMENT to hand out allowance money to every American based on some distant bureaucrat's calculations.

I now eagerly look forward to a post from you where you attack my literacy, intelligence, critical thinking skills, or all three at once, followed by a whine or two about strawmen or how I have added to the discussion (primarily because I will NOT say "Gosh, Incestmo, you are a utter genius, you are THE supreme expert on everything, I will never contradict you again). 

"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)

  • Login to post comments

I don't care if he did or

Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 3:34pm.

I don't care if he did or didn't do it for fun, he didn't have the authority to do any of it. I notice that you don't deny any of it (good thing, too, since they're facts). The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court even said that Lincoln didn't have the authority to suspend habeas corpus. Lincolns' response? An arrest warrant for the Supreme Court justice. I have no doubt whatsoever you subscribe to the myth that the Civil War was about slavery, even though Lincoln himself said that it wasn't.

I do not want the government to determine how much we each spend on food or clothing. This is a deliberate mischaracterization of the FairTax. The FairTax does not have the government telling anyone what to spend their money on. It is not "allowance" money.

  • Login to post comments

Sure Satch...

Submitted by Jer on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 3:44pm.

Slavery had absolutely nothing to do with secession and secession had absolutely nothing to do with the war.

Please stop embarrassing yourself.

Jer

  • Login to post comments

Lincoln's sole reason for

Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 3:58pm.

Lincoln's sole reason for fighting was to preserve the Union. This was the beginning of the end of state sovereignty.

"By Lincoln's admission, he prosecuted the war between the Union States of the North and the Southern Confederate States in order to maintain the Union; he vowed to so do 'by freeing all the slaves or without freeing any slave,' as Mark Bostridge conceded uncontroversially in the Times Literary Supplement (Dec. 10, 2010). Duly, Lincoln's 'Emancipation Proclamation' guaranteed that slaves were freed only in regions of the Confederacy still inaccessible to the Union army. Union soldiers, for their part, were permitted to seize slaves in rebel territory and put them to work. In areas loyal to the North, slaves were not emancipated. After the war, Lincoln offered little land to the freed men; parceling off the spoils to his constituent power base: the railroad and mining companies.

The North was no more fighting to abolish slavery than the South was fighting to preserve it: A mere 15 percent, or thereabouts, of Southerners owned slaves."

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=262117

  • Login to post comments

Satch...

Submitted by Jer on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 4:33pm.

Just to clear up a minor point. After the war, Lincoln was DEAD. He was assassinated shortly after Lee surrendered the Army of Northern Virginia to Grant but a couple of weeks before Joe Johnston surrendered to Sherman.

Please review the speech of the V-P of the Confederacy, Alexander Stephens. The founding principle, the very cornerstone of the Confederacy was the essential and demonstrable state of inequality between the races and the right of the South to maintain the institution of slavery. Lincoln was committed to preventing the further spread of slavery--which the pro-slave southern states recognized would gradually but inexorably shift the balance of power in favor of the free states and would ultimately prove fatal to the institution itself.

To suggest the issue of slavery was totally disconnected from the Civil War is sheer folly.

Jer

  • Login to post comments

First of all, I am not

Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 5:14pm.

First of all, I am not suggesting that slavery was totally disconnected from the Civil War. Not at all. Secondly, Alexander Stephens is not the topic; Lincoln is. It doesn't matter what Stephens' opinions or views or motives were, it is Lincoln's that we are discussing. Lincoln's actions in having the Union at war were not about slavery or freeing the slaves; they were about preserving the Union, and he committed numerous unconstitutional acts during the course of the war. It is not inconsistent that many so-called conservatives turn their head or try to rationalize these acts, just as they continue to do with current events and even with topics that appear on this site.

And yes, Lincoln was dead after the war. Even though there was a very short window between the end of the war and his murder, it doesn't take days to commit the stroke of a pen.

  • Login to post comments

For the Confederate apologist Incestmo

Submitted by Unsane on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 5:48pm.

You aren't remotely a conservative either, so maybe you ought to shut up with your "so-called conservatives" crap. 

In any event, the last time I read the Constitution, there is no mechanism for secession there either.  So therefore I can make a very tight case that the South committed an unconstitutional act as well - a point which a Confederate apologist like yourself (in league with other Confederate apologists) will doubtless gloss over. 

Lincoln may have started out to preserve the Union, but once it became clear to him that in order to achieve this that slavery had to be destroyed, that became an objective.  And again, last I checked, in accordance with Article II of the Constitution, Lincoln did take an oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States".  I fail to see how permitting a rebellion to take place shows Lincoln's commitment to carrying out that portion of his oath of office - an oath MANDATED in the Constitution.   

"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)

  • Login to post comments

Of course there isn't a

Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 7:50pm.

Of course there isn't a mechanism for secession in the Constitution. Thirteen sovereign, independent states drafted a contract amongst themselves. The Constitution is the formation of a federal government with restrictions on it in order to protect the sovereignty of the states as well as the individual liberties of citizens. They didn't give up their sovereignty in doing so. It's laughable to think a mechanism must exist in order for a sovereign state to declare its right to leave the Union. Surely you subscribe to this Jeffersonian view? If so, then you would recognize and agree with Jefferson that secession is a perfectly legal, perfectly acceptable decision that works within the Constitutional framework rather than a revolt against it.

  • Login to post comments

I see the idea of cohesion disgusts you as well as social norms

Submitted by Unsane on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 11:10pm.

Thank you for agreeing with me that what the southern states did by seceding in 1860-1861 was unconstitutional.  If this was a perfectly legal route, please explain in detail why it was not placed in the Constitution in specific language. 

Thanks also for pointing out your distaste - and in fact complete disgust - at the fact that a single, cohesive entity called the United States of America exists. 

"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)

  • Login to post comments

I didn't agree with you.

Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 7:49am.

I didn't agree with you. Secession is not unconstitutional. The Constitution is the formation of the federal government by the states and it restricts what the federal government can do. The states did not abdicate their sovereignty in forming the federal government. As to your last bit, you're a very strange dude. I don't know where these fantasies of yours come from, but it's clear what their purpose is: to distract. Once again you didn't respond to the content at all. It's sad.

  • Login to post comments

Hmm this is interesting as I

Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 9:41am.

Hmm this is interesting as I agree with this per my understanding of the Constitution:

"Secession is not unconstitutional. The Constitution is the formation of the federal government by the states and it restricts what the federal government can do. The states did not abdicate their sovereignty in forming the federal government."

That is why they are call "states." Which implies sovereignty except for the powers voluntarily given over to the federal government. Now if you cancel the contract, the feds don't have any of the agreed powers. The states are the prime power, just like the voters are the power over the state. Not the other way around.

So that leads to Ft. Sumter. I believe the Confederates (about 500 people) attacked first to take it over from the 85 or so soldiers in the Fort. But was it technically a Federal property or a State asset? If still Federal property by title, you could argue that should have been legally sold back to the state. Otherwise they can still occupy it. If that is true, I would say that was not wise to attack it first since that turned out to be the start of the war.

And as for slavery, you can also say the USA had a "right cause" to attack the new South as an independent country. This seems to be just like the USA going into Iraq or Libya for humanitarian and National interests. Then, once war starts, war is war and one side wins. That is why it is best to win!

-- Maximusbraveheart -- Is TRUTH knowable? Moral Relativism is the abandonment of Truth. Truth is knowable. Truth conforms to Reality. Reality is observable by evidence & witness in this day & from history. Relativism is Sesame Street play land.

  • Login to post comments

That's a great question

Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 11:30am.

That's a great question regarding the fort. South Carolina seceded in December, 1860 and their attack on the fort was a few months later. Lincoln planned to send supplies to the fort and had even notified SC about it.. Who could question South Carolina's suspicions? In fairness, the attack only occurred after the Union garrison refused to surrender. Your question is a good one to think about.

  • Login to post comments

More vapid "condescension". More like being a poser.

Submitted by Unsane on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 10:14am.

What's sad is that you are an intellectual lightweight, yet you think yourself to be NB'S foremost, supreme expert on every imaginable topic.  You carry yourself around here as such, and when you take on much more than you can handle, and you get your ass kicked, you realize what a lightweight you are.  This is when you begin to childishly attack people and try to be condescending when you have no business being so as a complete poser. 

Anyways, I have responded to your content repeatedly; you are a lightweight who cannot counter-argue.  And there is absolutely no denying the fact that nothing in society means s*** to you.  The Constitution?  That's just a silly little garden party invite where the states can come and go as they damn well please.  (Never mind that unfortunately for you and MaximusBraveheart, there is no legal mechanism specified in the Constitution for secession.)  Society?  That's an evil, oppressive thing.  How DARE societies have things like norms, folkways, mores, standards of behavior and the like! 

By the way: it is best not to ever whine about people not responding to content not just because the posters clearly have: but also because you cannot be bothered to answer anyone's questions.  Such as: if the Civil War wasn't about slavery as you and the people you slavishly follow insist, tell us: what was it about? 

"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)

  • Login to post comments

Unsane, just how is a state

Submitted by bassndude on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 10:42am.

Unsane, just how is a state seceding unconstitutional? Can you point to that, where it says a state may not withdraw from the union? The Constitution is heavily weighted in favor of the states and their rights. All rights are the purview of the states. The federal government is limited by the Constitution.

The 10th Amendment spells it out.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

I do not read where the power to prohibit succession lies with the federal government.

 

Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!

  • Login to post comments

Do you prefer the Articles of Confederation by chance?

Submitted by Unsane on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 11:08am.

I would argue the Constitution is weighted heavily in no direction. 

And where did I say secession was prohibited?  I said there is no mechanism in the Constitution for secession. 

And your interpretation of the 10th Amendment - I read it and simply don't see anything in it that discusses secession is about as scary as hearing Leftists use the 14th Amendment to justify virtually anything (I have yet to find the right to privacy there but Leftists assure me it is there.  Maybe I need to read the Constitution with a UV lamp more often.)

I guess the Articles of Confederation is more your speed. 

"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)

  • Login to post comments

The 10th Amendment says

Submitted by bassndude on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 11:22am.

The 10th Amendment says plainly, that IF the power is NOT delegated to the Federal Government or Prohibited to the States, that power is Reserved for the States, or the people.

So if you read the Constitution, you will not find the power of secession delegated to the Federal Government. That, in and of its self reserves that power to the states, or the people. If the people of a state, vote to secede, that is within the power reserved for the state.

There is nothing unconstitutional about it.

The Articles of Confederation were replaced by the US Constitution.

 

Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!

  • Login to post comments

Reading words in the Constitution that simply aren't there

Submitted by Unsane on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 2:57pm.

Thank you for further clarifying that you read the Constitution the way a Leftist does.  His Majesty The Shahinshah I'm sure would love to appoint you to the Supreme Court.

There is NOTHING anywhere in the Constitution about a legal mechanism for secession.  NOTHING at all, therefore it is an illegal act.  You can read the 10th Amendment 50,000 more times, and you will see nothing there about secession, unless your edition says something differently under a UV lamp, like the Leftist version of the Constitution.

The Articles of Confederation preceded the Constitution?  Why, I had no idea!   I only am instructing this to college students...

Hence, since you clearly don't like the Constitution, because you view it as a silly garden-party invite where states can come and go as they damn well please at their convenience, I think you'd be far more comfortable with the Articles of Confederation.  You must look upon the 17th of September, 1787, as a very sad day in history. 

"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)

  • Login to post comments

Jefferson was a leftist freak

Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 3:26pm.

Jefferson was a leftist freak who clearly didn't like the Constitution!

"If there be any among us who wish to dissolve the Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed, as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it." - Thomas Jefferson, 1801 inaugural address.

"If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation ... to a continuance in the union .... I have no hesitation in saying, 'Let us separate.'" - Thomas Jefferson, 1816, after New England federalists attempted to secede.

"The powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression." - Virginia's ratification convention.

"...not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong." - James Madison, explaining who "the People" are, Federalist Paper #39.

http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/politics/rights/1543-States-Have-Right...
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/dilorenzo2.html

  • Login to post comments

Useless but interesting

Submitted by Unsane on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 11:43pm.

All this is great.  Now, instead of quoting me the Founders, and quoting racist bigot reactionaries like Lew Rockwell (who is also a Confederate apologist and works for a Confederate apologist institute), how about you look at the terms of surrender inked at Appomattox Courthouse. 

(That's the thing about you reactionaries.  Your study of history only runs from, say, 1775 on up to 1826 or so, and then you have no knowledge until what has happened in your lifetime.  Anyways...) 

Because what happened there and what led up to it renders all of that moot. You lost this argument on 9 April 1865.  The South Lost.  Get Over It.   Sure, it would have been interesting to see what the Founders thought of the Civil War, but all won the death pool long before the war was fought. 

"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)

  • Login to post comments

unsane, the reason for the 10

Submitted by bassndude on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 3:43pm.

unsane, the reason for the 10 Amendment was to insure that the states retained the power to govern themselves. There is nothing in the Constitution about a legal mechanism for many things. But IF you read the Amendment, and are honest, (seeing as how you confess to teach college, that may really be expecting to much from you), you will see it is a catch all. The last one the Founders put in was their way of protecting states rights.

You are the one that is reading like a leftist. After all, they also believe that the Federal Government is the supreme authority, and can do anything they like. No matter if the people like it or not.

I at least got off my butt, as a young man and did my best to defend the Constitution on the battle field. Unlike any collage "professor" I have ever met. Their most accomplished moment came in a classroom when they got up and noticed how shinny the chair was they had polished with their butt! 

 

Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!

  • Login to post comments

The 10th amendment isn't

Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 3:45pm.

The 10th amendment isn't necessary for the secession argument.You know and I know that the Constitution is a contract amongst sovereign states to create a federal government and to limit the federal government. He's not going to understand this; to expect him to understand anything is foolish thinking.

  • Login to post comments

Without the 10th Amendment

Submitted by bassndude on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 4:40pm.

there would be no powers reserved for the states after joining the Union. The 10th Amendment is the one that limits the power of the Federal Government and reserves power for the states.

 

Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!

  • Login to post comments

Of course, but that is under

Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 5:10pm.

Of course, but that is under the rubric of being a member of the Union. Withdrawl from the Union does not need the codification of the 10th to do so. A soveriegn state is not giving up its soveriegnty to be a member of the Republic.

  • Login to post comments

Except for one tiny problem

Submitted by Unsane on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 7:18pm.

States are not sovereign. 

The United States of America is sovereign.  UT, for example, is not sovereign. 

"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)

  • Login to post comments

"States are not

Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 8:03pm.

"States are not sovereign."

LOL. HOLY COW.

I don't know what you call yourself, but you are by no means a conservative.

  • Login to post comments

NOT SOVEREIGN

Submitted by Unsane on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 11:29pm.

I call myself educated and well-informed.  And a conservative. 

You, on the other hand, are not a conservative.  Conservatives don't think the government should dish out allowance money to people monthly, but you think that's a great idea.  And you are of course a sick freak for your endorsement of incest. 

And states are not sovereign.  I visit a state capital on a fairly regular basis and the last I checked, it does not have embassies from other sovereign states.  Nor does TX or any other state make treaties with other sovereign states.  Indeed, they are not allowed to do so under the Constitution, which amounts to a SURRENDER OF SOVEREIGNTY. 

And "LOL...HOLY COW" is NOT a counter-argument.  Once again you lose. 

"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)

  • Login to post comments

"I call myself educated and

Submitted by Satchmo on Sat, 04/02/2011 - 8:57am.

"I call myself educated and well-informed. And a conservative."

You are none of those things.

  • Login to post comments

King Beclowner Pervmo beclowns himself again.

Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 11:41pm.

Stupid Satchmo troll: A soveriegn state is not giving up its soveriegnty to be a member of the Republic.

Wrong again Retard Satchmo troll.

Sovereignty is the power of a state to do everything necessary to govern itself, such as making, executing, and applying laws; imposing and collecting taxes; making war and peace; and forming treaties or engaging in commerce with foreign nations.

The individual states of the United States do not possess the powers of external sovereignty, such as the right to deport undesirable persons, but each does have certain attributes of internal sovereignty, such as the power to regulate the acquisition and transfer of property within its borders. The sovereignty of a state is determined with reference to the U.S. Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land.

  • Login to post comments

Still can't find it...

Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 04/02/2011 - 10:40pm.

Only the 10th Amendment limits the power of the federal government?  Um, I actually believe the entire document does so one way or another, by defining what the federal government's powers are, and what it cannot do. 

And the 10th Amendment is all fine and well, but I have read it several times now, and I still don't see anything that permits secession.  Maybe I need to see YOUR copy of the Constitution, complete with the UV lamp required to read it so you can see all the hidden words and phrases and stuff. 

Besides, you and Incestmo lost this argument right around 9 April 1865, under the force of guns and quite a few gallons of blood.  Violence does have a knack for settling arguments.  Elizabeth Varon would doubtless note that the rhetoric of disunion stopped right around that point for some odd reason. 

I hate to say this, but the reason I say you are reading the Constitution like a Leftist is because you are reading into it things that are not there.  I am reading the thing very literally.  Hence, my argument hinges on the simple fact that there is not a single portion of the document that allows for secession.  Tell me it is in the 10th Amendment all you want, but this makes you no better than the Leftists and Justice Blackmuns of the world who insist that abortions are legal because the right to privacy is enshrined in the 14th Amendment.  I have read the 14th Amendment more times than I care to remember and cannot find a single word there about privacy, just as I cannot find the word "secession" in the 10th Amendment. 

Also, do keep in mind, bassndude, that I am myself a veteran.  I read the Constitution for the simple fact that since I swore to cough up my life for it if necessary...I MAY want to know the contents. 

"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)

  • Login to post comments

Not sovereign

Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 04/02/2011 - 6:40am.

Funny, you attack my "foolish thinking", yet you so foolishly believe that states are sovereign.

States are not sovereign.

"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)

  • Login to post comments

Private Bill Wilson has been banned.

Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 04/02/2011 - 7:20am.

King Beclowner j frank wilson is dead. Satchmo the Stupid troll has been coronated.

Long live King Beclowner Satchmo.

  • Login to post comments

"And where did I say

Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 1:45pm.

"And where did I say secession was prohibited?"

Below in your hilarious screed you say Lincoln was Constitutionally permitted to ignore the Constitution because secession is unconstitutional.

  • Login to post comments

For the vapid sick freak

Submitted by Unsane on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 3:06pm.

Answer the question, sick freak: if the Civil War wasn't about slavery, what was it about? 

The "screed' was so hilarious, yet it is clearly better than anything than you have written on this thread.  The only thing you can do is call it "hilarious" because you are a lightweight without a counter-argument. 

The more you insult, the more you dismiss, without a counter-argument, the more you lose the argument.

And you, your fellow Confederate apologists, and bassndude have ALL lost anyway.  You all lost under the force of guns right around April 9, 1865. 

So, answer the question, and otherwise shut up.  The Southern states illegally rebelled, and rebellion is simply not permitted in the Constitution.  So Lincoln ended the rebellion, just as the Whiskey Rebellion was put down very early on.  (Hmmmm.  None of you are burning any energy on that topic.  Why, if Lincoln was so evil for putting down a rebellion, you must hate Washington for doing the same thing.)  In fact, I can make a very tight case that the Southern leadership all committed treason as defined under the Constitution. 

"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)

  • Login to post comments

You're not even suggesting

Submitted by Jer on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 6:00pm.

You're not even suggesting that slavery was totally disconnected from the Civil War? Not at all?

Well excuse me for misinterpreting your earlier assertion, which I believe went something like this:

"I have no doubt whatsoever you subscribe to the myth that the Civil War was about slavery...".

To me that seems pretty close to suggesting that slavery was totally disconnected from the Civil War. 

Now, the legality or extra-constitutionality of a number of suspect measures taken by Lincoln during the war can be fairly debated, and he naturally would be the central figure--maybe the only figure--upon whom any such analysis would be focused.

But the roots of secession, and the proximate cause of the war, involve not only the study of Lincoln's philosophy, but also requires an examination of the views of many others as well--including Alexander Stephens.

Jer

  • Login to post comments

Correct, I am not suggesting

Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 8:27pm.

Correct, I am not suggesting that slavery was totally disconnected from the Civil War. Saying the Civil War was about slavery is akin to saying the Civil War was about ironclads. Lincoln's involvement had everything to do with preserving the Union and crushing the foundational American views of state sovereignty. His views prior to his presidency, and even in the Lincoln-Douglas debates, support this.

  • Login to post comments

Well, after a sensible start,

Submitted by Jer on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 8:44pm.

Well, after a sensible start, you unfortunately decided to press your luck with a second sentence and drove straight off the cliff, accompanied by one of the more stunningly inane assertions that I've seen in a long, long, time. What next?...claiming WWII was about Nazism is akin to saying it was about radar?

Jer

  • Login to post comments

Come on, surely you recognize

Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 9:10pm.

Come on, surely you recognize exaggeration. I'm no student of WWII, but I think we could have a pretty interesting discussion as to whether it was about Nazism. Especially since U.S. involvement didn't occur as a result of German attacks, but as a result of Japanese attacks. Still, good analogy.

  • Login to post comments

Source evaluation

Submitted by Unsane on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 5:55pm.

Now, that's a great, scholarly source for historians.  Good old World Nut Daily. 

Incestmo, source evaluation is...forget it. 

"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)

  • Login to post comments

Civil War was by far and

Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 3:50pm.

Civil War was by far and large about slavery. Southern DEMs were outspoken on this and the South self proclaimed themselves at the Slave Holding States. Without that issue there would have been no civil war.

-- Maximusbraveheart -- Is TRUTH knowable? Moral Relativism is the abandonment of Truth. Truth is knowable. Truth conforms to Reality. Reality is observable by evidence & witness in this day & from history. Relativism is Sesame Street play land.

  • Login to post comments

This is a myth. Not the least

Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 4:00pm.

This is a myth. Not the least of which is that Northerners held slaves as well. See my link above.

Further reading: http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo62.html

  • Login to post comments

Might want to take Jer's advice, SatchelMouth---

Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 4:54pm.

You will lose big time if you dispute him on Civil War knowledge, or lore.

MD

"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)
  • Login to post comments

He has never lost. Never, ever.

Submitted by SickofLibs on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 5:03pm.

Just ask him.

  • Login to post comments

That,---

Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 5:17pm.

too.   :o)

MD

"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)
  • Login to post comments

Your source evaluation is non-existent

Submitted by Unsane on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 5:50pm.

Source evaluation is key.  Lew Rockwell is a major Confederate apologist, and belongs to the von Mises Institute, which is itself a libertarian institute that is a hotbed of Confederate apologism. 

And as a former chief of staff to America's most famous reactionary, Ron Paul, he is suspect on a  GOOD day in any event.

By the way, if the Civil War wasn't about slavery (snicker), what do YOU (not Lew Rockwell or anyone else) think it was about?

"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)

  • Login to post comments

Shocking, isn't it, that a

Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 8:18pm.

Shocking, isn't it, that a libertarian and supporter of the Mises institute would link to an article by a libertarian and Mises-institute senior fellow? Once again, I notice that you don't dispute any of the content and instead go with an argument to which even a third-grader would raise an eyebrow. You use this "Confederate apologist" term, but I don't think you really know what you're talking about. Actually, given your history, I know you don't.

  • Login to post comments

The vile Incestmo

Submitted by Unsane on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 11:34pm.

Of course, you have nothing, so you childishly attack my intelligence, therefore further confirming your reputation as one of the most vapid, disgusting, vile posters on NB.

Here's a hint: an intellectual lightweight (that would be you) has zero authority to be condescending.  Yet you constantly do it, because you think yourself to be THE SUPREME EXPERT in all things.  Unfortunately for you, you are not. 

For one thing you have decided to stupidly attack two posters whose backgrounds are in history.  You double down by attacking a poster who more or less specializes in this area (that would not be me though I can more than hold my own in U.S. history).

See, I know it is going to some as a deep shock to you, but I, as one who is quite close to being a professional historian, tends to question people's sources.  You think yourself to be special, 1000% above any criticism, and think those who DO question you or your sources to be somewhere beneath contempt.  Unfortunately for you, you are no better than the Leftists I deal with on a daily basis who engage in intellectual wankery and if I can question their sources and arguments, I sure as all hell can and will question yours. 

I don't dispute the content because I haven't read it.  Why?  Because I practice source evaluation and am already aware of the biases of your article.  Why should I bother even looking at it?  And seriously, you're an idiot for posting such crap anyway.  What you did is akin to a Leftist coming on here proclaiming Fox News is biased and deriving all his information from Media Matters.  If you want me to respect your argument or your sources, the least you can do is pretend to care about objectivity and bring in some objective sources that back your argument.  You failed to do that (no surprise) and thus show yourself to be an intellectual lightweight, instead of the intellectual giant you constantly depict yourself to be. 

The only person I see acting like a third-grader would be you, and actually I think you are behaving like a temper-tantrum throwing day care child. 

Now, you may see the Union as something like a garden party where the states can just come and go as they damn well please but history tells me that is a positively s***y way to develop a nation internally and makes it quite prone to external attacks.  But then, this doesn't surprise me: if not for your desire for a tyrannical government that has the power to dish out allowance money on a monthly basis, I would have no choice but to consider you an anarchist.  Hell, even basic societal norms sicken you. 

I most certainly know what a Confederate apologist is.  Incestmo is one.  How do I know this?  Because he won't shut up about how evil Lincoln was (never mind he followed his Constitutionally mandated oath of office by preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution of the United States) and he dismisses slavery as a cause for the Civil War.  Whether you know it or not or care or not, you are defending the Confederacy.  Which lost, by the way. 

And I notice yet again answering questions is totally beneath you, because you refuse to answer a very basic question: what do YOU think the Civil War was about if not slavery?

By the way, so much for your petulant whine about you not caring what I think of anything you say.  Once again I hit a nerve of yours with a CEP of zero. 

You need to relocate the rock you crawled out from under and crawl back under it and stay there.

"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)

  • Login to post comments

I hesitate to get in the way

Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 8:52am.

I hesitate to get in the way of your nonsensical, yet sublime, rant, because it truly is a thing of beauty, but I can't help point out the deliciousness of your Orwellian pronouncement "Lincoln followed his Constitutionally mandated oath of office by preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution" after a list of unconstitutional acts committed by Lincoln were presented. It brings to mind Bush's doublethink "I’ve abandoned free market principles to save the free market system" and the Vietnam gem "It became necessary to destroy the village in order to save it."

  • Login to post comments

More from the lightweight Incestmo

Submitted by Unsane on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 10:34am.

It's nonsense to you because you are a lightweight.  If you weren't lightweight, you would do something your immaturity and intellectual poser mode won't permit: you would come up with a decent counter-argument.  But you don't.  This is what you do instead:

1) Dismiss.  ("By writing 'nonsense', I invalidate Unsane's whole argument!  Why?  Because I, Incestmo, am THE SUPREME EXPERT on EVERYTHING!!!" That it really shows Incestmo's ineptitude is completely lost on him, hidden by Incestmo's enormous ego.)

2) Childishly attack the poster. 

This is what you standard responses consist of at all times. 

And hilariously, you whine up above about how I allegedly do not respond to content, yet you refuse to address a simple, basic question, which is:

If you don't think the Civil War was about slavery, what was it about?

Now, sick freak, answer that question. 

What is deliciously ironic is a sick freak like you attacking Lincoln for unconstitutional acts when you have made it abundantly clear here that the last thing that means s*** to you is the Constitution of the United States.  What I have pledged my life to defend is nothing to you but a suggestion; a silly garden party invite that states can join and leave as they damn well please.  (That there is absolutely no mechanism for states to leave the Union in the Constitution is completely lost on you; further demonstrating that the Constitution is less meaningful to you than a strategically placed roll of toilet paper.  Or at the very least, you think the Constitution is just a series of suggestions that you follow only at your convenience.) 

You SCREAM and SCREAM and SCREAM that Lincoln was the most evil bastard in the world for things like suspending habeas corpus, but you fail miserably to realize that these acts you are throwing a tantrum about were in response to an unconstitutional act: namely, secession, and a rebellion against that Constitution.  But no, he was supposed to ignore his own oath of office, and whine "Gee, guys, I am SO CRESTFALLEN that you are seceding!"  The fact is, and one that constantly escapes Confederate apologists like yourself, that the Southern states were in rebellion, and the rebellion had to be stopped, just as the Whiskey Rebellion could not be allowed to fester. 

The Constitution is many things, but it is not 1) a garden party invite, 2) a series of suggestions you can follow at your convenience, or 3) a suicide pact. 

Now, if you have any balls at all - I doubt it - go read Disunion! by Elizabeth Varon.  You might, for the first time in decades, actually learn something from it. 

"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)

  • Login to post comments

High comedy.

Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 1:47pm.

High comedy.

  • Login to post comments

The Surrender of Incestmo

Submitted by Unsane on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 3:10pm.

Translation: "Unsane, you have a far superior argument to me and I have nothing to counter with.  Therefore you win.  Unsane, you are the man I want to be."

(And not even a feeble attempt to answer a very basic question I have put forth.  Incestmo is so f***ing pathetic.  He needs to go back to lusting after female branches of his family tree...)

"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)

  • Login to post comments

Incestom, still history deficient

Submitted by Unsane on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 5:39pm.

The UNFAIRTax, by your own repeated admission, involves the government dishing out "prebate checks" to people to cover the "necessities". Therefore, it is allowance money, no matter how violent your temper tantrum is, insisting that it isn't. I'm not mischaracterzing anything at all.

Lincoln's mission was to keep the Union together, but even he came to the conclusion that slavery had to be destroyed in order to keep the Union together.  This wasn't immediate, but this came over time.  Hence things like the Emancipation Proclamation.  Curious: if this war wasn't about slavery, then why was the Emancipation Proclamation issued?  Why was the 13th Amendment ratified after the war? 

And what do YOU think it was about if not slavery? 

And in your mind, he was supposed to simply watch the Union fall apart.  That this would have been in violation of his oath of office (that "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" thing) doesn't matter to you at all, of course.  And of course, you also leave out the fact that the evil bastard Lincoln permitted elections to go forth anyway - in fact, if he was the evil tyrant you swear he is, I'd be interested in knowing why he didn't somehow prevent the 1864 election - one he was sure to lose for quite some time before changes in the fortunes of the Civil War helped ensure his victory.

But hey, thanks, sick freak, for showing NB how utterly distasteful your views are to an even greater extent by showing yourself to be a Confederate apologist.

"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)

  • Login to post comments

Opinion after listening - Materials from Civil war days.

Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 7:26pm.

Can people interested in the Civil War give a listen to these & post your comments? It is an early history of the REP party & shows how it was the party of blacks & whites against slavery. Its sole reason for forming.

I listened to all 5 of them twice. Never heard this stuff in history class... wonder why? We need a full on conversion of Blacks & Hispanics to the REP party. If only they all could listen to history vs. a sanitized rewrite of history:

Setting the Record Straight: American History in Black & White, part 1 of 5

http://www.wallbuilderslive.com/archives.asp?d=201102 Monday, February 28, 2011

-- Maximusbraveheart -- Is TRUTH knowable? Moral Relativism is the abandonment of Truth. Truth is knowable. Truth conforms to Reality. Reality is observable by evidence & witness in this day & from history. Relativism is Sesame Street play land.

  • Login to post comments

If you can't listen online,

Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 12:33pm.

If you can't listen online, download the 5 segments to your phone to listen to them while driving, etc. I am interested in someone else listening to them... they gave great historical narratives read back from documents.

-- Maximusbraveheart -- Is TRUTH knowable? Moral Relativism is the abandonment of Truth. Truth is knowable. Truth conforms to Reality. Reality is observable by evidence & witness in this day & from history. Relativism is Sesame Street play land.

  • Login to post comments

Will do. Thanks for the link.

Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 1:25pm.

Will do. Thanks for the link.

  • Login to post comments

Malia asks me every night,

Submitted by djaymick on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 12:00pm.

Malia asks me every night, "Dad, when are you going to plug that a-hole?"

Obama's prayer:

Dear God,

Thank you for the greatest job in the world. Thank you for a great press. Please give them the wisdom to keep writing great things about me and overlooking my shortfalls. Thank you for my teleprompter. Without it, I would be a bumbling fool. Please give me the wisdom of how to make it smaller. I know I'll be out of a job at the end of next year and could use the extra cash.
Oh, and thank you for Michelle and the girls. Whenever I'm in a bind, they make a great diversion to any conversation.

Amen

  • Login to post comments

Utter The Words

Submitted by Utherpend on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 12:08pm.

The only time the word Kentucky passes DIane Sawyers lips is when she talks about basketball. She dispises this state and has never looked back after she hit the big time. To her we are the Hillbilly cousins she doesnt acknowledge. She is the perfect hypocrite.

"For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security."
  • Login to post comments

Another one!

Submitted by Patriot II on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 12:25pm.

What a dimwitted bimbo.....these liberal A.H.'s are unbelievable!!!

  • Login to post comments

Yeah, im praying too

Submitted by brutony1 on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 12:44pm.

For Kentucky to get their asses kicked by my Big East brethren UConn, and I pray every night for this doofus-in-chief to get impeached, disappear, or at the very least get soundly defeated next year!

Basketball Jones-EXCELLENT new name for him, although he probably cant sing as well as he could!

When will liberals WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE! -Me

  • Login to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Stop Censoring The Gosnell Trial!

Editors' Picks

  • Romney's revenge (Avik Roy @ NRO)
  • Relax, the Arizona voter registration ruling was narrowly drawn by Scalia (Hans von Spakovsky)
  • Snowden loses his moral authority with dangerous leaks (Rothman @ Mediaite)
  • Rapper Lil' Wayne stomps on American flag (Rare)
  • Apple releases information about data requests from NSA, other agencies (LA Times)
  • Five myths about privacy (Solove @ Washington Post)
  • Polls show Americans more libertarian on pot, gay marriage, guns (Barone)
  • Single men are opting out of society thanks to suffocating liberalism (Right Wing News)
  • What if Superman had to join a union? (Steven Crowder)
Chuck Norris's picture
Chuck Norris
Chuck Norris Column: The Superman of Dads and Grads
Cal Thomas's picture
Cal Thomas
Cal Thomas Column: Broadcast Nets, Ailes Is What's Good for You
Ann Coulter's picture
Ann Coulter
Coulter Column: If the GOP Falls for 'Immigration Reform' Ruse, It Deserves to Die
Walter E. Williams's picture
Walter E. Williams
Walter E. Williams Column: Let People Sell Their Organs to Sick, Needy Recipients
Michelle Malkin's picture
Michelle Malkin
Malkin Column: Anthony Weiner's Underage Girl Problem
More >

RSS FeedAmazon KindleFacebookTwitter

Stop Censoring The News!

Audit the Man of Steel?!
more cartoons
  • O’Reilly: Obama Could Be Impeached If Evidence Shows Intel Agency Read Emails Without Warrant
  • Christie: Obama’s ‘Charm Offensive Should Have Started January 2009’; ‘Bit Late in Dating Game’
  • Howard Stern to Jimmy Fallon: ‘How You Got The Tonight Show I Don't Know. You Barely Beat Craig Ferguson’
  • Rand Paul: ‘I Want to Go From 5% of the African-American Vote to At Least 20-25%’
  • Chris Cuomo Claims He’s ‘Completely Divorced From Ideology’ While Talking Up ‘Advocacy Journalism’
More >
NewsBusters

Executive Editor
Matthew Sheffield

Editor at Large
Brent Baker

Senior Editors
Tim Graham
Rich Noyes

Managing Editor
Ken Shepherd

Associate Editor
Noel Sheppard

Contributing Editors
Tom Blumer
Geoffrey Dickens
Dan Gainor
David Limbaugh
Mithridate Ombud
Clay Waters
Scott Whitlock

Senior Contributor
Mark Finkelstein

Contributing Writers
Matthew Balan
Michael M. Bates
Erin R. Brown
Jack Coleman
Kyle Drennen
Douglas Ernst
P. J. Gladnick
Stephen Gutowski
Matt Hadro
D. S. Hube
Kathleen McKinley
Dave Pierre
Amy Ridenour
Julia A. Seymour
Terry Trippany
Rusty Weiss
Brad Wilmouth

Publisher
Brent Bozell

Site Design
Dialog New Media

 

  • Home
  • Blogs
  • About
  • Forum
  • Contact
  • Donate
  • Search
  • Account
  • rss
  • CNSNews
  • MRC TV
  • Biz & Media
  • Culture & Media
  • Take Action!
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Amazon Kindle
  • Advertise
  • Jobs

Copyright © 2005-2013 NewsBusters.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use