Jump to content
TEAM SHELBY FORUM

WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR FINANCIAL MELT DOWN


Recommended Posts

I THINK I NEED TO POST A PERMANENT THREAD THAT SAYS:

 

COBRA SCOTTY TYPES IN CAPS SO THAT HE CAN SEE WHAT IS BEING TYPED ; DO TO

 

HIS ACUTE VISION PROBLEMS.

 

 

I AM NOT SHOUTING I AM JUST READING WHAT I WROTE SORRY IF MY TYPING IS HURTING

 

YOUR EYES. :hysterical:

 

SCOTTY

 

 

(P.S.)

I AM HOPING THAT SOME NEW EYE SURGERY THAT I WILL UNDER GO THIS SUMMER TAKES

 

CARE OF YOUR CAPS PROBLEM WITH ME. :hysterical:

 

 

Concur with Scotty. This site has everything typed in micro print unless you enlarge the font after typing a message. It is ridiculious. The default font should be set at least 14 point. The print is so tiny you do not even pick up on typos, etc .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 93
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Deja: Lincoln was a man ahead of his time. Was he perfect? No. But he went to the wall for his beliefs, he died for them. To call him a closet rascist I think is a mischaracterization.

 

Your judging him against modern beliefs, I think that is unfair. Most of us have come a long way since those dark days. Most of us.

 

Some would prefer to villify Lincoln in the hopes that the real rascists will look less despicable. Slavery was doomed and only short sighted greedy men would not have realized that. It's sad that so many had to die in the process. But, we all have our opinions on these these things.

 

As far as gas prices, you only need look at the obscene profits made by Exxon over the last 4 years of Bush to know who was pulling the strings. The prices were driven up by speculartors running unchecked. It was a money grab. They got a little too greedy and the economy imploded. It's not the only reason but its a big part of it.

 

CobraCrazy: +1 :hysterical:

 

 

KC666

:rockon:

 

Devil; I am not comparing Lincoln to modern philosphies or ideals. Rather, he stated the black man was not equal to the white man. In any time that is racist and biased. I agree that slavery was doomed and the importation had already been made illegal. It was wrong then it is wrong now. And it was sad that so many had to die. There were more Americans that died in the Civil War than the Spanish American War, WWI and Korea combined.

 

But Exxon Mobil did not run the economy into the ground. OPEC did not want another republican and wanted obama. Gasoline prices doubled in less than 18 months, even though Nancy Pelosi stated when she became speaker that she and the democrats would lower the price of 2.00 per gallon gas. It went to over 4.00 but Nancy remained silent and blamed Bush. You will not see gas hit 4.00 per gallon this year as it is not necessary. It was necessary last year to destroy the economy before the election. They succeeded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Deja: Lincoln was a man ahead of his time. Was he perfect? No. But he went to the wall for his beliefs, he died for them. To call him a closet rascist I think is a mischaracterization.

 

Your judging him against modern beliefs, I think that is unfair. Most of us have come a long way since those dark days. Most of us.

 

Some would prefer to villify Lincoln in the hopes that the real rascists will look less despicable. Slavery was doomed and only short sighted greedy men would not have realized that. It's sad that so many had to die in the process. But, we all have our opinions on these these things.

 

As far as gas prices, you only need look at the obscene profits made by Exxon over the last 4 years of Bush to know who was pulling the strings. The prices were driven up by speculartors running unchecked. It was a money grab. They got a little too greedy and the economy imploded. It's not the only reason but its a big part of it.

 

CobraCrazy: +1 :hysterical:

 

 

KC666

:rockon:

 

You stated he died for his beliefs. His belief was that he was preserving the union. Remember what I typed previously about the draft riots after the emancipation proclamation. Are you familiar with those riots in the North?

 

BTW- since Jeff will not answer; was the civil war a war or just a uprising, riot, rebellion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You stated he died for his beliefs. His belief was that he was preserving the union. Remember what I typed previously about the draft riots after the emancipation proclamation. Are you familiar with those riots in the North?

 

BTW- since Jeff will not answer; was the civil war a war or just a uprising, riot, rebellion?

 

How about "all of the above"????????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about "all of the above"????????

 

Poison, there are important differences. So I will answer the question that others seem unable. First the North considered the issue a riot or rebellion. When Lincoln called up troops it was for only 90 days to put down the uprising. The South considered themselves a sovereign state, and that they had broke away just as the 13 original colonies had done only 85 years prior. The South felt they were invaded.

 

When the North invaded Virginia they seized the Lee homestead and turned it into a cemetary. After the war, and the reconcilliatio, the lee family asked for their home to be returned. The North stated the land was seized as the spoils of war. But no war had been declared by congress. Nor could it have been declared. In order to declare war it must be against another country. To declare war would have been to recognize the South as a sovereign country. It took almost a 100 years of court wrangling for the US government to be forced to pay the Lee descendants the value of Arlington.

 

Then there were the issues of Prisoner of War camps. Don't even start with what the North did there. Everyone remembers Andersonville, and the Commadant was executed for war crimes. But the North was never prosecuted for its war crimes.

 

Just remember, the victor writes the history books.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know you were dying to get that all out??????????????? :hysterical:

 

Yes I was. Because it betrays the ignorance most have of history. People base their knowledge of the civil war based on one issue, slavery. They know little of the economic issues, tariffs, and the issue of states rights. And as stated, the victors write the history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Poison, there are important differences. So I will answer the question that others seem unable. First the North considered the issue a riot or rebellion. When Lincoln called up troops it was for only 90 days to put down the uprising. The South considered themselves a sovereign state, and that they had broke away just as the 13 original colonies had done only 85 years prior. The South felt they were invaded.

 

When the North invaded Virginia they seized the Lee homestead and turned it into a cemetary. After the war, and the reconcilliatio, the lee family asked for their home to be returned. The North stated the land was seized as the spoils of war. But no war had been declared by congress. Nor could it have been declared. In order to declare war it must be against another country. To declare war would have been to recognize the South as a sovereign country. It took almost a 100 years of court wrangling for the US government to be forced to pay the Lee descendants the value of Arlington.

 

Then there were the issues of Prisoner of War camps. Don't even start with what the North did there. Everyone remembers Andersonville, and the Commadant was executed for war crimes. But the North was never prosecuted for its war crimes.

 

Just remember, the victor writes the history books.

 

 

It was not called a riot or rebellion but an insurrection and you left out more than even the Cliff notes would! :hysterical:

 

To put it into context, on April 12 Fort Sumter was attacked and later and on April 13th surrendered. On April 15th Lincoln declared a state of insurrection (see definition below). The South had taken up arms and attacked the Fort.

 

So there is no confusion:

 

insurrection |ˌinsəˈrek sh ən|

noun

a violent uprising against an authority or government : the insurrection was savagely put down | opposition to the new regime led to armed insurrection. From late Latin insurrectio(n-), from insurgere ‘rise up.’

 

Now as for the "invading North" the "invasion" didn't happen until AFTER Virginia secession and with the estate overlooking DC and close enough to the capitol to fire cannon upon it the estate was captured as the Army crossed the Potomac. A few weeks after her family's evacuation, Mrs. Lee corresponded with the Union army commander General McDowell and he assured her that the house had not been occupied and that he would do his utmost to protect it. He could not make similar assurances about the 1,100 acres which surrounded the house and soon a variety of Forts were built and with land for union soldier burials running low, they began use a remote 200 acre area of the estate as a graveyard. But soon military needs outweighed the promises and the house was used as an Army headquarters.

 

After the war Robert E. Lee and his wife decided not to pursue regaining the title to the mansion. The Lees’ decision not to pursue the title of the property was influenced by Lee’s belief that to do so would heighten sectional hostilities and hamper the Reconstruction process, rather than concerns about the graves on the property.

 

After Robert E. Lee and his wife died in the early 1870s, their oldest son, Custis Lee, brought suit against the U.S. Government in attempt to regain title to the estate. In 1882, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in Custis Lee’s favor. Rather than assume ownership he opted to be compensated in the amount of $150,000 in exchange for the property.

 

As for the comment "the victor writes the history books" that makes for a good come back for maybe a few years but we're long past that and I think we have a good understanding now about this war and I would be happy to send you a list of books you might want to check out if you're interested!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW- since Jeff will not answer; was the civil war a war or just a uprising, riot, rebellion?

 

I answered you in another thread, or was it this one, but again, you didn't like the answer and I really don't have time to debate every nuance of US History with you when there are so many "facts" you like to cite that are honestly just wrong. Of course I really don't even understand why you asked me the question in the first place. I thought it was rather random and that alone gave me reason to pause.

 

Anyway, I will leave you with my favorite Lincoln quote:

 

"If I were to try to read, much less answer, all the attacks made on me, this shop might as well be closed for any other business. I do the very best I know how - the very best I can; and I mean to keep doing so until the end. If the end brings me out all right, what's said against me won't amount to anything. If the end brings me out wrong, ten angels swearing I was right would make no difference."

 

All the best!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was not called a riot or rebellion but an insurrection and you left out more than even the Cliff notes would! :hysterical:

 

To put it into context, on April 12 Fort Sumter was attacked and later and on April 13th surrendered. On April 15th Lincoln declared a state of insurrection (see definition below). The South had taken up arms and attacked the Fort.

 

So there is no confusion:

 

insurrection |ˌinsəˈrek sh ən|

noun

a violent uprising against an authority or government : the insurrection was savagely put down | opposition to the new regime led to armed insurrection. From late Latin insurrectio(n-), from insurgere ‘rise up.’

 

Now as for the "invading North" the "invasion" didn't happen until AFTER Virginia secession and with the estate overlooking DC and close enough to the capitol to fire cannon upon it the estate was captured as the Army crossed the Potomac. A few weeks after her family's evacuation, Mrs. Lee corresponded with the Union army commander General McDowell and he assured her that the house had not been occupied and that he would do his utmost to protect it. He could not make similar assurances about the 1,100 acres which surrounded the house and soon a variety of Forts were built and with land for union soldier burials running low, they began use a remote 200 acre area of the estate as a graveyard. But soon military needs outweighed the promises and the house was used as an Army headquarters.

 

After the war Robert E. Lee and his wife decided not to pursue regaining the title to the mansion. The Lees’ decision not to pursue the title of the property was influenced by Lee’s belief that to do so would heighten sectional hostilities and hamper the Reconstruction process, rather than concerns about the graves on the property.

 

After Robert E. Lee and his wife died in the early 1870s, their oldest son, Custis Lee, brought suit against the U.S. Government in attempt to regain title to the estate. In 1882, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in Custis Lee’s favor. Rather than assume ownership he opted to be compensated in the amount of $150,000 in exchange for the property.

 

As for the comment "the victor writes the history books" that makes for a good come back for maybe a few years but we're long past that and I think we have a good understanding now about this war and I would be happy to send you a list of books you might want to check out if you're interested!

 

Jeff, au contraire, in the beginning the civil war was also referred to as a riot or rebellion. The North did not want to give credence to the Confederacy. Stating it wa an insurrection as opposed to a rebellion is the mere parsing of terms. The next thing you know you will ask what the definition of "is" is. Get real. Rebellion v insurrection and you try to draw a difference. There were over 10 names for the civil war at the time. The term civil war really did not become popular until after welll after the war.

 

Yes the Lee Homestead was in a military tactical position and the home was occupied almost immediately. But, as usual, you failed to report the rest of the story. You stated they used a remote 200 acres for burial. That flies in the face of reality when the north, under Brigadier General Meigs, ordered the first union soldiers killed at Bull Run to be buried so close to the home as to prevent it ever being occupied again. In addition the union ordered a monument to slaves to be built on the property. In 1864 the home faced foreclosure for taxes. Mary Custis Lee sent a cousin to pay the taxes in the amount of 92.07. The federal government refused to accept the payment and required, in the Lee's case, that the owner appear in person to pay the taxes. Mary Custis Lee was confined to a wheel chair at the time.

 

So you are wrong. The Union did not use a remote 200 acres eventually but rather immediately made the house so as not to be able to be used again.

 

You defend the union stating they had to use the house as military headquarters. I guess this was the only home in Northern Virginia?

 

Re books to read. Chances are I could double, triple or quadruple your collection. I have studied the civil war for 50 years. Although I do not declare to know everything or to always be correct I do have knowledge.

 

IN closing, the intent was to deprive the Lee's of their home forever from the beginning. As you know the battle of bull run was one of the first major battles when lincoln called up troops for 90 days to put down the rebellion, riot, or insurrection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PLEASE SHARE THIS BEFORE IT IS REMOVED

 

 

This video clearly shows that George Bush warned Congress starting in 2001 that this economic crisis was

coming if something was not done. Congress refused to listen along with the arrogant Congressman, Barney Frank.

 

This video says it all..The liberal media reportedly did not want this video on You Tube; it was taken off.

 

This link is of the same video but is routed through Canada. Everyone in America needs to see this before it

is yanked off the Internet again!

 

Let's see how far we can spread it before it's pulled it off the Canadian site.

 

 

 

OMG! This is not "routed though Canada"!

 

This is YouTube! You can't get to http://ca.youtube.com/ in the US go ahead and try and YouTube does not "route" video from anyone it's all on YouTube's local servers.

 

"routed though Canada" :hysterical:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, I said Devil only as a nickname because you have the numbers 666. Just like DDT is poison.

 

The democrats controlled the budget for 2007 2008 as they controlled congress.

 

Why was gas 5.00 per gallon? Supposedly it is supply and demand. It was price fixing and gouging and in my opinion was meant to accelerate the demise of the economy in an election year. OPEC was pumping more oil last year than now so how was the supply diminished. And everyone knew there was no shortage when the prices rose.

 

Yes, and those little black helicopters! Do you see them too? :lurk:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was not called a riot or rebellion but an insurrection and you left out more than even the Cliff notes would! :hysterical:

 

To put it into context, on April 12 Fort Sumter was attacked and later and on April 13th surrendered. On April 15th Lincoln declared a state of insurrection (see definition below). The South had taken up arms and attacked the Fort.

 

So there is no confusion:

 

insurrection |ˌinsəˈrek sh ən|

noun

a violent uprising against an authority or government : the insurrection was savagely put down | opposition to the new regime led to armed insurrection. From late Latin insurrectio(n-), from insurgere ‘rise up.’

 

Now as for the "invading North" the "invasion" didn't happen until AFTER Virginia secession and with the estate overlooking DC and close enough to the capitol to fire cannon upon it the estate was captured as the Army crossed the Potomac. A few weeks after her family's evacuation, Mrs. Lee corresponded with the Union army commander General McDowell and he assured her that the house had not been occupied and that he would do his utmost to protect it. He could not make similar assurances about the 1,100 acres which surrounded the house and soon a variety of Forts were built and with land for union soldier burials running low, they began use a remote 200 acre area of the estate as a graveyard. But soon military needs outweighed the promises and the house was used as an Army headquarters.

 

After the war Robert E. Lee and his wife decided not to pursue regaining the title to the mansion. The Lees’ decision not to pursue the title of the property was influenced by Lee’s belief that to do so would heighten sectional hostilities and hamper the Reconstruction process, rather than concerns about the graves on the property.

 

After Robert E. Lee and his wife died in the early 1870s, their oldest son, Custis Lee, brought suit against the U.S. Government in attempt to regain title to the estate. In 1882, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in Custis Lee’s favor. Rather than assume ownership he opted to be compensated in the amount of $150,000 in exchange for the property.

 

As for the comment "the victor writes the history books" that makes for a good come back for maybe a few years but we're long past that and I think we have a good understanding now about this war and I would be happy to send you a list of books you might want to check out if you're interested!

 

 

BTW- you mentioned the US Supreme Court awarded the home to Custis Lee. You failed to mention why the court awarded the property. The reason is the United States Government seized the land without due process. Maybe they thought they didn't have to do that in time of rebellion, riot, or insurrection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeff, Robert E. Lee, was undoubtedly considered a very wise and fair man. Here are his thoughts on secession and the American government at the time of the rebellion.

 

I can anticipate no greater calamity for the country than a dissolution of the Union. It would be an accumulation of all the evils we complain of, and I am willing to sacrifice everything but honour for its preservation. I hope, therefore, that all constitutional means will be exhausted before there is a resort to force. Secession is nothing but revolution. The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labour, wisdom, and forbearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will. It is intended for 'perpetual Union,' so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution, or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession: anarchy would have been established, and not a government, by Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, and all the other patriots of the Revolution. ... Still, a Union that can only be maintained by swords and bayonets, and in which strife and civil war are to take the place of brotherly love and kindness, has no charm for me. I shall mourn for my country and for the welfare and progress of mankind. If the Union is dissolved and the Government disrupted, I shall return to my native State and share the miseries of my people, and, save in defense will draw my sword on none.

Letter to his son, G. W. Custis Lee (23 January 1861)

 

 

Emphasis added.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lincoln did make racist statements. That is a fact. Sorry if he does not live up to your expectations. He did a lot of great things but that does not mean he was not a closet racist. He did not consider the black man equal to the white man and planned to repatriate. Again, if you have an argument with his statements......talk to Lincoln, no me. He said it, not me. Lincoln also said he would allow slavery if it would preserve the union. And the emancipation proclamation proved he intended to preserve the union not abolish slavery. Those are the facts. It must be difficult to try and debate when others offer facts and you can only offer an opinion.

 

You offer no facts and when you do they're more often than not wrong!! You offer only opinion based upon a regurgitation of a few books and essays that have been written over the past few years that interpret the President's words and actions in the 19th Century through a 21st Century lens in an attempt to tear him down, for what reason I can't say. Your are wrong in your facts so often I wouldn't have time to do my real job if I responded to each. :hysterical:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW- you mentioned the US Supreme Court awarded the home to Custis Lee. You failed to mention why the court awarded the property. The reason is the United States Government seized the land without due process. Maybe they thought they didn't have to do that in time of rebellion, riot, or insurrection.

 

:hysterical: OMG! What difference does it make! Do I have a write a book on every fact you get wrong?

 

YOU WERE WRONG!

 

100 years!

 

You're killing me!

:hysterical:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OMG! This is not "routed though Canada"!

 

This is YouTube! You can't get to http://ca.youtube.com/ in the US go ahead and try and YouTube does not "route" video from anyone it's all on YouTube's local servers.

 

"routed though Canada" :hysterical:

 

 

So you argue symantics yet no comment on substance. :headscratch:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeff, Robert E. Lee, was undoubtedly considered a very wise and fair man. Here are his thoughts on secession and the American government at the time of the rebellion.

 

I can anticipate no greater calamity for the country than a dissolution of the Union. It would be an accumulation of all the evils we complain of, and I am willing to sacrifice everything but honour for its preservation. I hope, therefore, that all constitutional means will be exhausted before there is a resort to force. Secession is nothing but revolution. The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labour, wisdom, and forbearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will. It is intended for 'perpetual Union,' so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution, or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession: anarchy would have been established, and not a government, by Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, and all the other patriots of the Revolution. ... Still, a Union that can only be maintained by swords and bayonets, and in which strife and civil war are to take the place of brotherly love and kindness, has no charm for me. I shall mourn for my country and for the welfare and progress of mankind. If the Union is dissolved and the Government disrupted, I shall return to my native State and share the miseries of my people, and, save in defense will draw my sword on none.

Letter to his son, G. W. Custis Lee (23 January 1861)

 

 

Emphasis added.

 

 

Listen to me: I DON'T CARE!

 

You cited incorrect facts AGAIN and I called you on them...I'M DONE!

 

I'm not going to debate you ANY MORE, you can't even the easy stuff right! If I can't even depend upon you to check even the most basic facts of your argument why should I bother?!?

:headscratch:

 

I'm out...but you can continue on!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:hysterical: OMG! What difference does it make! Do I have a write a book on every fact you get wrong?

 

YOU WERE WRONG!

 

100 years!

 

You're killing me!

:hysterical:

 

No Jeff I was not wrong. I quoted facts. You reply with an opinion that I was wrong.

 

BTW- there were numerous names for the "Insurrection" at the time. A partial list is included below.

 

The Civil War

The Lost Cause

The Brothers' War

Mr. Lincoln's War

The Yankee Invasion

The Confederate War

The Great Rebellion

The War of Secession

The War for the Union

The War for Abolition

The Southern Rebellion

The War for Separation

The War of the Sixties

The War of the Rebellion

The War Against Slavery

The War for Nationality

The War of the Southrons

The War for States' Rights

The War for Southern Rights

The War for Southern Freedom

The War of the North and South

The Second American Revolution

The Second War for Independence

The Civil War Between the States

The War for Southern Nationality

The War of the Southern Planters

The War for Southern Independence

The War for Constitutional Liberty

The War Against Northern Aggression

The War to Suppress Yankee Arrogance

 

 

Funny, I didn't see Insurrection one time. But I did see rebellion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you argue symantics yet no comment on substance. :headscratch:

 

 

Dude, you expect me to watch, dissect, and research this video? Please I don't have the time and I really REALLY don't care!

 

My point was the person posting used this "conspiracy" to imply a point that the video must then be the true and thus being hidden or taken down and that's not the case. It's nothing more factual than any other user created video on YouTube.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Listen to me: I DON'T CARE!

 

You cited incorrect facts AGAIN and I called you on them...I'M DONE!

 

I'm not going to debate you ANY MORE, you can't even the easy stuff right! If I can't even depend upon you to check even the most basic facts of your argument why should I bother?!?

:headscratch:

 

I'm out...but you can continue on!

 

Jeff, if I cited an incorrect fact then please be so kind as to be specific. Anyone can claim that someone is incorrect in a fact or presentation. You stated you can't depend on me to check the most basic facts. So if we are talking about the Civil War.....be specific or else you are just percieved as having lost the debate and being unable to substantiate your arguement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No Jeff I was not wrong. I quoted facts. You reply with an opinion that I was wrong.

 

Funny, I didn't see Insurrection one time. But I did see rebellion.

 

 

Where are your facts?

 

I see none!

 

Go to the Civil War section of the Smithsonian and you can read the proclamation yourself as I did!

 

Have a good day!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dude, you expect me to watch, dissect, and research this video? Please I don't have the time and I really REALLY don't care!

 

My point was the person posting used this "conspiracy" to imply a point that the video must then be the true and thus being hidden or taken down and that's not the case. It's nothing more factual than any other user created video on YouTube.

 

 

Hmmm, I dont care about the conspiracy issue. Too many of those going around. I dont really care whos to blame, thats a Democratic tactic. I just want the crap fixed and its clear, no one in Washington will be able to do that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeff, if I cited an incorrect fact then please be so kind as to be specific. Anyone can claim that someone is incorrect in a fact or presentation. You stated you can't depend on me to check the most basic facts. So if we are talking about the Civil War.....be specific or else you are just percieved as having lost the debate and being unable to substantiate your arguement.

 

 

Have a nice day!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeff, I do not know how this thread went from the economy to the civil war and I am not going to analyze the different posts. However, I take exception to your reckless remarks that I was in error when we discussed the civil war in general and Arlington Cemetary in particular. You stated I have so many errors and cannot be trusted to check my facts. If I am in error re Arlington Cemetary then so is the official web site of Arlington Cemetary.

 

http://www.arlingtoncemetery.org/historica...gton_house.html

 

I realize you are in over your head when you attempt to argue American history. I have studied the American Civil War for 50 years and have an enviable library of materiel. In addition to college level courses on the American Civil War. This does not always mean that I am infallible but I do know more than the average person when it comes to American History and the American Civil War.

 

You don't have to apologize but you can buy me a O;Doul's someday and I will counter with buying you a Sharp's or other non-alcoholic beverage of your choice. For me it might even be a tall ice water with lemon.

 

You can be a pleasure to debate. Not always.

 

Have a good day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where are your facts?

 

I see none!

 

Go to the Civil War section of the Smithsonian and you can read the proclamation yourself as I did!

 

Have a good day!

 

Jeff, let me make one more statement that I believe to be true but cannot provide documentation. George W. Bush was not responsible for the American Civil War or slavery. While I do not have documentation I believe the courts will take judicial notice of the issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OMG! :cry: What difference does it make! :cry: Do I have a write a book on every fact you get wrong? :rant:

YOU WERE WRONG! :rant2:

100 years!

You're killing me! :tease:

Listen to me: I DON'T CARE! :cry:

You cited incorrect facts AGAIN and I called you on them...I'M DONE! :baby:

I'm not going to debate you ANY MORE, :cry: you can't even the easy stuff right! If I :cry: can't even depend upon you to check even the most basic facts of your argument why should I bother?!?

I'm out. :cry: .but you can continue on!

Dude, you expect me to watch, dissect, and research this video? Please I don't have the time :baby: and I :rant: really REALLY don't care!

My :kuko: point was the person posting used this "conspiracy" to imply a point that the video must then be the true and thus being hidden :barf: or taken down and that's not the case. It's nothing more factual than any other user created video on YouTube.

So you argue symantics yet no comment on substance. :headscratch:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No Jeff I was not wrong. I quoted facts. You reply with an opinion that I was wrong.

 

BTW- there were numerous names for the "Insurrection" at the time. A partial list is included below.

 

The Civil War

The Lost Cause

The Brothers' War

Mr. Lincoln's War

The Yankee Invasion

The Confederate War

The Great Rebellion

The War of Secession

The War for the Union

The War for Abolition

The Southern Rebellion

The War for Separation

The War of the Sixties

The War of the Rebellion

The War Against Slavery

The War for Nationality

The War of the Southrons

The War for States' Rights

The War for Southern Rights

The War for Southern Freedom

The War of the North and South

The Second American Revolution

The Second War for Independence

The Civil War Between the States

The War for Southern Nationality

The War of the Southern Planters

The War for Southern Independence

The War for Constitutional Liberty

The War Against Northern Aggression

The War to Suppress Yankee Arrogance

 

 

Funny, I didn't see Insurrection one time. But I did see rebellion.

You, know ya can't put FACTS, in front of, worshipers of, Obama/Socialist/Pro Marxist/Communists, it throws them into an, Emotional, 'Tissy Fit'.

 

Now he's is going to yell at the cat and spend the day, 'Pouting', and closing , 'threads', that he disagrees with. Then he's going to light some incense and look to the EAST for, guidance, I can hear the chant now, Obama, master of all that is known, grant me the BS, to spread to the , Infidel's, who do not 'swallow what propaganda, liberal/socialist/pro Marxist brain washed, kool-aide drinkers, spew out.

 

I hope that was not mean or harsh, I would not want to stir up any sh-t when it comes to obama, politics or an arrogant power tripper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...
...